Subject: Ethics of Code Usage

From: [email-masked] (Jeff T.P.)
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 16:07:58 -0800

Welcome to Jeff's MOO ethics. . . and idealistic view.

Ethically, yes you should ask permission, and you should give credit
where credit is due.  Realistically, no one really cares who made an
object.  They use it, it's neat, big deal.  If it's from another MOO,
then they care even less who 'made' it.  The wizards put it together at
the local MOO, and that's all that matters.

Let's not simulate the darker side of reality anymore than we already
have.  We don't need to be concerned about Copyrights and all that bull,
instead how about thinking that if we let anybody take our programs and
work on them, then one day they'll be much better than our original?

Personally, I've had several of my projects moved from Dragon's Fire MOO
to Harper's Tale MOO, and vice-versa I wouldn't doubt.  I'm not
complaining.  Heck if they can use my code, then let'em.  Why scream and
shout: "I worked four weeks on this Frob-o-Matic and no one can steal
it."  If you had something better to do during that time then you should
have, otherwise the programming and planning you did was part of your
hobby, and if you don't enjoy your hobby, and don't enjoy sharing your
hobby with others, then you should find a new hobby.

Let me summerize:  In kindergarten we learned to share.  Somewhere
between then and now we learned to be greedy.  Where did you have more
fun, in kindergarten where there was nap time, toys, and lots of
friends; or now where there are responsiblities, bills, and lots of
people stabbing you in the back.  Okay, let's go back to kindergarten
and share.
-- 
I don't know which is worse, that  |  I'd make mine higher, but it's
everyone has a price, or that the  |  hard to find buyers as it is.
price is always so low.            |
                                      -- PGP Key Available --

---

From: Quinn Avery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 16:18:15 -0800

I resent the simplistic implication that wanting credit for
 something you've worked hard on is being GREEDY.

As for this being a 'hobby', it ISN'T for many people.  Mud
 development has a commercial future.  It isn't all fun and
 games and a waste of time.

Even wanting to be paid for something you do isn't being Greedy.

It's called a job.

---

From: [email-masked] (Karl Boyken)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 06:45:05 -0800

Wishing that coding on LambdaMOO and similar MOOs were a job doesn't make it 
a job.  The fact is that right now, most people who write MOO code aren't 
getting paid to do it.  It is a hobby right now, for most MOO programmers.

And even if you were getting paid to write MOO code, it's an open question 
as to whether you'd be able to claim a personal copyright on that code.  If 
they wanted to, I suspect that Xerox could make a good case in court that 
all MOO code is theirs in some sense.  And since Xerox is a large 
corporation with deeper pockets than the average MOO coder, they'd have a 
good chance of winning.

I'm not trying to make the case that we all work for Xerox, or that Xerox is 
a big, mean, greedy corporation.  I have no idea what Xerox might or might 
not do.  I'm just trying to make the point that it's not clear at all that 
MOO coders would indeed successfully be able to enforce a copyright on their 
code.  This is especially true for MOO code that is publically readable and 
that is attributed to some MOO character instead of to a living, breathing, 
RL person--which describes all the MOO code I've ever seen.

Copyright law for RL software is still in its infancy, and some of the 
precedents to date even seem to contradict each other in some ways, if you 
can believe the pundits in the computer journals.  If copyright is so 
ill-defined in a RL context, you can bet that copyright for MOO code is even 
less clear-cut.

Anyone who writes MOO code with the idea that they will be able to claim it 
successfully as their own is being pretty naive.

Karl Boyken, system programmer, Dept. of Computer Science
303A MLH, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA  52242
voice:  319-335-2730   fax:  319-335-0627
Internet:  [email-masked]

---

From: Quinn Avery <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 11:45:15 -0800

>The fact is that right now, most people who write MOO code aren't
 
For most, yes.  So what?  I'm getting paid for it.  Not a lot, but
 enough so that I see a future in MOO/mud as a valid new creative
 medium for writers.
 
>Anyone who writes MOO code with the idea that they will be able to
> claim it successfully as their own is being pretty naive.
 
MOO is simply another medium of expression.  I have as much right to
 claim code I write as my own as you do to claim the email you just
 wrote was written by yourself, regardless of whether or not you own
 uiowa.edu.  Is a painting owned by the canvasmaker?  Is a building
 owned by the steelworks?  Is a book owned by the binder?  MOO is a
 creative workshop explicitly in the public domain.
 
Is it naive to hope to have credit for something you've worked hard
 to produce?  Should we all resign ourselves that whoever owns our
 workspace is gonna steal our work?  Should we not sketch in the city
 park for fear of the government laying claim to our drawings?
 
I grow easily ill of people who accuse idealism of being naivete.
 
>If they wanted to, I suspect that Xerox could make a good case in
> court that all MOO code is theirs in some sense.
 
Obviously they could try to do this.
 
But they aren't.

---

From: Andrew Wilson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 19:34:26 -0800

We love you Quinn, you do know that don't you?

Andyworker.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ian McFarland)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 01:22:27 -0800

>Obviously they could try to do this.

I write my code in a word processor, and upload it to the MOO server. :)
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#
| imf@netcom,com  or  [email-masked]                Jeste pivo, prosim! |
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#

---

From: [email-masked] (Ian McFarland)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 11:30:40 -0800

>> Um, paper is public domain. Pencils, too.

>   Really!?  I'd love free pencils and paper!  Where can one find such things?

You're welcome to make your own. You don't even have to give credit.
--
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#
| imf@netcom,com  or  [email-masked]                Jeste pivo, prosim! |
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#

---

From: [email-masked] (Sam Weber)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 11:11:22 -0800

>From: Nicholas LaFlamme <[email-masked]>
>On Fri, 19 Nov 1993, Ian McFarland wrote:
>> At  5:22 AM 11/17/93 -0800, Nicholas LaFlamme wrote:
>> >     The Server itself is PD(as far as I know).  It seems tacky to try to
>> >enforce copyright laws on something written on someon elses PD system.
>> 

*sigh*  "Alice In Wonderland" is in the public domain.  Do you think that
you can therefore walk into your local bookstore and demand a free copy of
it?  Pencils and paper are PD -- you don't need to get anyone's permission
to make or use a blank sheet of paper, or a pencil.

  -Sam