Talk:noegnud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] General

It's un-wikipedia like and not netural point of view to include the political statement of a single person (i.e., the developer of Noegnud) as useful content in wikipedia. A two line summation of its intent would be better. Including the developer's opinion only promotes copying by others that produce some open source product, create a wikipedia page for it, state some personal opinion in the license, and then promote that opinion by a wikipedia article that pretends that that 'feature' is novel.

• While this is certainly a valid point, it should be noted that the statements made in this license text, although one may perceive them as discriminating, are not just the opinion of this particular author, but reflect the thinking of the vast majority of people on this planet (every more or less educated person living outside the USA). However, only very few people have the civil courage to actually stand up against the Devil. I was genuinely impressed by the author's bravery, and I think this deserves being read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.35.164.28 (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't understand the website...will I have to download NetHack 3.4.2 to play with noeGNUd?

No, it's self contained. Entro-P 10:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Even the noeGNUd Windows 3.4.2 won't work for me... (cries)

Is this the one you installed:

* http://www.darkarts.co.za/projects/noegnud/downloads/0.8.2/noegnud-0.8.2_win32_bin-NetHack-3.4.2.exe

or you could use this one(or both):

* http://www.darkarts.co.za/projects/noegnud/downloads/0.8.2/noegnud-0.8.2_win32_bin-SlashEm-0.0.7E3.exe

And then the data to go with them:

* http://www.darkarts.co.za/projects/noegnud/downloads/0.8.0/noegnud-0.8.0_win32_data-full.exe

Entro-P 14:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Updated the download locations Entro-P 14:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I finally got it to work. May I suggest making the website clearer for casual users like me?

Darn. Keeps freezing when I select my character, then when I try again with the same name, asks if I want to continue. If I do, then it closes. If I don't, then it closes. I give up. I probably deleted something important. I'll try again.

[edit] Iraq war protest licensing

I'm dying to know what the america-specific licensing terms the author of noGNUd proposed were. Does anyone know?

included it on the main article page. --Entro-P 07:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Is that verbatim? 'Cause I noticed a number of misspellings there. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I pasted it as it origionally stood. Keep in mind it was a draft proposal that never actualy became a licence. I am unfortunately far from being the world's best speller, my wife is constantly beating me over the head with a large manual entitled "using the spellchecker" ;) --Entro-P 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed the heading to clarify it was only a proposed license and never finalized. Pimlottc 16:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License text

That requires a citation, anyone could have changed whilst copy/pasting etc. etc.

“

The proposed licence^{[citation needed]}

Originally plain text, wikilinks are added:

Software Licence Agreement (U.S.A)

If you are a citizen of the United States of America, work for any company based within or which has divisions in the United States of America, are affiliated in any way with any organisation based within, or supporting in any way the United States of America or have shares in or any vested interrests in any company based or working within the United States of America then you must first agree to the following sub-licence agreement before using this software.

I hereby denounce the foreign policy of the United States of America and admit that the United States of America is acting as a rogue state by declaring a war on any country or faction without the full support of the United Nations.

I agree that the United States of America should not interfere, for any reason, with any other sovereign state, not as defined by the United Sates of America's own definition thereof, but by the definitions of sovereignty as prescribed by the world body in its incantation as the United Nations.

I personally support the world criminal court established in the Hague and agree that the United States of America, by failing to recognise this world body of criminal justice is in error.

I support the understanding that the United States of America should not, and may not, imprison any individuals for any length of time without specific reasons given publicly and that any prisoner of the United States of America, even if held off the shores of the United States of America should have access to representation. Any individuals held by the United States of America should only be held with the consent of the state of which the individual is a citizen, unless the individual committed a crime on the soil of the United States of America, in which case this individual falls under the complete jurisdiction of the United States of America and should be afforded all legal benefits according to the United States of America's own constitution.

As the worlds largest generator of pollution, by failing to sign the KYOTO agreement, I denounce the United States of America for forcing the results of its own destructive behaviour on the rest of the planet's inhabitants.

I admonish the United States of America for its attitude towards Weapons of Mass Destruction. While invading other sovereign states for relatively small collections (or in some cases none) of weapons of mass destruction, the United States of America has a large quantity of these weapons itself. I denounce the United States of America for its forceable destruction of these weapons wherever it feels comfortable doing so, while keeping its own collection of these weapons and supporting its allies rights to collecting these same weapons of mass death and support the idea that all weapons of mass destruction, as well as their manufacture, should be stopped with equal force for all.”

I am moving it here per WP:CITE, WP:OR and WP:VS. Iolakana•T 16:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Controversy" Section Sloppiness

Though an interesting affair (the special licensure for the USA), I see a few problems with it as written:

• The lead summary is incorrect in stating it would have applied only to US citizens. This is apparent from reading the included license proposal and the original, referenced document. As written and interpreted broadly (which isn't hard to do), the proposed license would have applied to a rather large population beyond the US citizenry. See the employment, affiliation, and support subclauses. This discrepancy should be addressed.

• There are no references for the entire affair apart from the external document. The whole "backstory" within the wikipedia article lacks reliable sources and contains mildly distressing / biased language ("the author caved ... citing pressure"). I believe this to be an even larger problem.

• The evaluation of how the proposed license change might or might not have fit with definitions of Free Software and the Open Source Definition strike me as hasty original research with a political bent of its own. It is likely also moot, as the developer proposing the alteration clearly intended for there to be discrimination and did not care. I'm really not sure what to make of this unreferenced hypothetical evaluation of an unapplied license alteration. Seems a bit silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D.brodale (talk • contribs) 16:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it does have consequences for the project. Nethack is licensed under a copyleft scheme (effectively a proto-GPL) so the restrictions in this license would clash with those of nethack itself, possibly even causing a copyright breach. Also, as mentioned in the article, Sourceforge applied pressure to the noegnud developers not to use the discriminatory license, almost certainly as a consequence of the discriminatory clauses failing to conform to the FSF/OSI/DFSG definitions. It does need referencing, but everything in this article is weakly referenced anyways... --82.45.163.18 16:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary to reproduce the entire "US" version of the proposed license? It exists as a referenced external document for easy perusal ... and aren't there better places to maintain documents such as this rather than in-body of wikipedia articles?

I hope someone steps up to the plate and addresses concerns such as these, as I'm baffled how the presentation of this affair within the article continues to elude those who have already (above) noted that there's something a little off in this section.

D.brodale 16:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I do think that the controversy is totally off-place. It is much bigger than the info about the program itself, which is ridiculous. And what does it have to do with the program? As far as I know, it even got discarded before use. It also makes the author look like those morons that require you to convert to Islam to avoid death, and what do they achieve? nothing. So, I think is better for the author, the program, and the wikipage if that section got removed in its entirety. 84.121.129.9 19:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the inlined copy/paste of the article, as the proposed license is available in full externally. There's no need to reproduce it. I left the "Controversy" section in place, but question both the significance and the validity of the remarks that remain behind. D. Brodale 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)