----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gerner Andreasen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dominic J. Eidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 7:11 PM Subject: Re: Incredible violation of trust and ethics, what should I do?
> if you search the REOPNED archive you will actualy see that i have posted > about this once befour, and the gnu & the Sourceforge ppl, says the exact > same thing, the diku muds around as not compatible with the OSD, been > talking to em more than once and even got into a big battle with the gnu ppl > about there sucking license and what not, and i pointed out to em that true > open source is actualy PD, and there source license is just as annoying as > the diku trees license. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dominic J. Eidson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Jeremy Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Tom Whiting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 5:46 PM > Subject: Re: Incredible violation of trust and ethics, what should I do? > > > > > > I just couldn't help enlightening cluebies.. > > > > On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Jeremy Hill wrote: > > > > > No. > > > > > > Diku license: > > > > > > -- No resale or operation for profit. > > > -- Original author's names must appear in login sequence. > > > -- The 'credits' command must report original authors. > > > -- You must notify the Diku creators that you are operating a Diku mud. > > > > > > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html > > > #1. > > > > Your above points do not conflict with #1-9 of the above url. > > > > > Hell, read the first line of the Diku Rules: > > > > > > !! DikuMud is NOT Public Domain, shareware, careware or the like !! > > > > Public domain and shareware are _not_ Open Source. > > > > > Also: > > > > > > You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud > in > > > any possible way. You may under no circumstances charge money for > > > distributing any part of dikumud - this includes the usual $5 charge > > > for "sending the disk" or "just for the disk" etc. > > > By breaking these rules you violate the agreement between us and the > > > University, and hence will be sued. > > > > Quote chapter and verse of where this conflicts with the OSD. > > > > > Other "violations: > > > > > > If you publish *any* part of dikumud, we as creators must appear in the > > > article, and the article must be clearly copyrighted subject to this > > > license. Before publishing you must first send us a message, by > > > snail-mail or e-mail, and inform us what, where and when you are > > > publishing (remember to include your address, name etc.) > > > > What's wrong with "Give credit where credit due?" > > > > > Hell, OSD log 1.5: > > > *1.5 allow "reasonable reproduction cost" to meet GPL terms. > > > > > > Diku License explicitly forbids this. > > > > 1.5 does not _require_ a reasonable reproduction cost. It states that you > > _may_ (but do not HAVE TO) charge a reasonable reproduction cost. > > > > > Rom license: > > > > > > 4) Before opening a ROM-based mud, you must send email to the author > > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), so that I can keep track of sites for > > > future code releases. > > > > > > While this isn't a "violation" per se, how often do you see "Before > using this > > > newest Linux Kernel you MUST e-mail Linux Torvalds."? > > > > Although he'd be perfectly within his rights to ask for such.. The success > > of such an endeavour, is questionable though. > > > > > > -- > > Dominic J. Eidson > > "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - > Gimli > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > http://www.the-infinite.org/ > http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/ > > > > > > -- > > ROM mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.rom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rom > > >
