Talk:DikuMUD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DikuMUD article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of massively multiplayer online games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Everquest controversy 2 Still a Stub? 3 License section incorrect 4 Raph Koster

[edit] Everquest controversy

Regarding [1]... The current text is Bernard Yee, stated that EverQuest was "like Diku". He did not specify whether he meant the code itself was derived from DikuMUD. The previous text says that Yee claimed that EQ was somehow based on DikuMUD, which could mean as little as inspiration or as much as code.

If they simply said it was "like Diku" then why would anyone assume that this meant that they used code from it? It sounds odd to keep the clarification when the new text says "like Diku", which is something that would not be confused with using the code.

I think the new text downplays the actual message, since obviously someone ended up thinking it was based on the code.Atari2600tim 12:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while with no responses, so I'm just going to edit it to reflect the new information brought by this "like Diku" quote, since it currently is implying less than the older "based on DikuMUD". Please put an explanation on this talk page if someone decides to change it back.Atari2600tim 10:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the usenet thread in the References section before, but this whole issue was discussed there, and the text on this article is pretty obviously misleading and has been clarified almost half a decade ago. It is very disappointing that it would be on this article. I would suggest that the usenet link should have a note next to it mentioning that the title is inaccurate. The title of it currently is rec.games.mud.diku thread "Sony's EverQuest admits to using Diku as a base" with absolutely no disclaimer at all (you actually have to read half-way through the thread in order to find out that the title is wrong). I'm going to just put (misleading title) and hopefully someone else can change it to something more informative without getting too wordy. Atari2600tim 11:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right, a disclaimer is appropriate for that Usenet article. I think yours is just fine. Do you still find the "text on this article is pretty obviously misleading"? I wrote most of it and did not intend for this. Feel free to edit. SpuriousQ 00:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I was referring only to the controversy section. I personally had thought that this 'controversy' was something more serious, because I had read the article and not followed the link to find the entire story. After reading the usenet thread, I can see that this is a thing that was pushed by one person and not taken by anyone else as credible. I do note that it says "minor controversy", but I suppose that there's no way of showing how minor that it apparently was :P By "text on this article" I was referring to the EQ stuff that was in this article without any acknowledgment of how inaccurate the claims were. It doesn't help when the thread itself has lots of "We based EQ on Diku"-type things from madmerv to wade through (meaning that someone could read the first dozen-ish posts and still come away with the wrong impression). The rest of this article sounds great though and I consider it to be one of the better MUD-related articles on here. Atari2600tim 11:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still a Stub?

Does this article still merit to be classified as a stub? If so, what information is it missing? If not, we should remove the classification! Myrdred 20:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed stub. However, one thing that is missing are references. --GentlemanGhost 08:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License section incorrect

The section on DikuMUD's license states:

The DikuMUD license is generous, but does not permit all possible uses. The source code for DikuMUD is publicly available at no charge, anyone can run an unmodified or modified DikuMUD without paying any royalties, and modified derivatives of the DikuMUD code can be publicly distributed. However, the DikuMUD license includes the following requirement: "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." Thus, DikuMUD is not open source software as defined by the Open Source Definition (OSD), because the OSD's clause 6 requires "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor", that is, commercial users cannot be excluded. For the same reason, DikuMUD is not Free Software as per the Free Software Definition; it fails to meet the requirement that the program gives "The freedom to run the program for any purpose" (it forbids commercial purposes). However, DikuMUD and its derivatives are developed in the same manner as these similar software production practices.

This is an incorrect interpretation of both the Open Source Definition and the Free Software Definition.

The FSF's Free Software Definition obviously does not prohibit so-called "copyleft" software from being considered Free Software, as it comes from GNU. The GNU Public License is one of the most draconian copyleft licenses in existence, barring effectively any commercial redistribution of the product.

Further, the OSD states: "The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties." Meaning, any redistribution (or derivation) of the product must allow the same rights as the original product, including the sharing of source code.

In both cases, these definitional clauses exist to protect commercial users' right to the products of USE of the program, not actual derivatives of the code itself. For instance, the creators of the GIMP would not be allowed to bar a commercial graphic design firm from using their software and selling the images they create with it. However, they certainly can bar a company from taking the GIMP source, adding features, and then redistributing the new product for charge. --Kuronekoyama 03:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get too off-topic, but this is not true. You can distribute a GPL'd program for profit, you can't with Diku. That's the whole free beer vs. free speech dichotomy. You can certainly take the GIMP and sell it, and you don't even need to add features. Of course, it's a poor business model. Regardless, I support the removal/pruning of that section, since it's not really relevant. I doubt the average reader will care if the Diku license satisfies the definition of free or open source software. But noting that it freely provided the source and thus spawned a great number of derivatives is of course notable. -SpuriousQ (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Spurious is correct. One can redistribute GPLed software for profit. The Diku license prohibits commercial or for profit use, thus it is not OSD compliant and the original text is correct. The new text asserts "Because of this clause, DikuMUD's license can be considered an example of copyleft open source software." This is also incorrect. See the following at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense, "The University of Utah Public License is a non-free license because it does not allow commercial redistribution. It also purports to restrict commercially running the software and even commercially giving consultation about it." Clearly FSF/GNU would consider Diku a "non-free license. Jlambert 06:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raph Koster

Was Raph Koster really the chief creative officer of EQ2? It seems more likely someone meant to write "Star Wars: Galaxies" there. I don't know that he had any connection with EQ2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)