The official server flamewar topic

Talk about anything, including games and servers not affiliated with The Mana World.
blackrazor
Novice
Novice
Posts: 332
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 14:38

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by blackrazor » 07 Mar 2019, 04:00

Freeyorp101 wrote:
07 Mar 2019, 03:43
Regarding the repeated requests for a written contract. While we've already seen that a court will consider the impact of a pair of adjacent emoji in a text message as evidence, you might be interested in some of the general rules surrounding validity of online evidence, and how broadly this is considered.
U.S.C. § 7001. General rule of validity wrote:(a) In general Notwithstanding any statute, regulation, or other rule of law (other than this subchapter and subchapter II), with respect to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce—
(1) a signature, contract, or other record relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form; and
(2) a contract relating to such transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its formation.
Rule 1001. Definitions The Apply to This Article wrote: (a) A “writing” consists of letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent set down in any form.
You might also be interested in the [statute of frauds], which exhaustively enumerates the activities which *must* require a written and signed contract. Which activity do you believe this falls under?
blackrazor wrote:
07 Mar 2019, 03:10
misdirect by swamping us with mindless drivel
These are all pieces of evidence that a court would consider when attempting to determine ownership of the eathena@ account, and many more.

If you do not wish to consider the evidence, why are you replying?

At the very least, Platyna providing written expectation that the eathena files and forums were to go with bjorn in 2009, when she declared that she no longer wished to host the project, is certainly relevant to the interests of any fair court.
blackrazor wrote:
07 Mar 2019, 03:10
I wrote one up with minimal effort. It was only three lines of text. Was that too much work for the founder or his co-workers? Just slipped their collective minds? Trusting strangers over the internet? Lost in the mail? Eaten by dog? No contract? Too damn bad. No copyright for you!
That's quite disingenuous at best. The Regulations of Platinum Linux Non-profit Servers make quite clear the rules surrounding the engagement, and hosts do not in general made individually named, written, and signed contracts for each user. I certainly have no such specific agreement with Linode for my servers, nor does TMW currently have any such individual contract with Azure.

From ~2010, I had a shell account (which is much closer to the hosted arrangement in question here, as compared to Azure providing a full VM) with wilcox-tech's public access servers, and they had a similar set of terms of service. I would certainly not expect my IRC logs (created by the irssi IRC client, which is also GPL, not that it matters, as you were the only one that seems to think TMWC believed they could copy data under GPL provisions, rather than having the blessing of bjorn, the owner of the files) to then become property of the server administrators.

You could ask the https://sdf.org/ administrators if they believe they own all the shell account data of their members, or if they made individually named, written, signed contracts for each member. If this is truly how the law works, I suspect quite a lot of people will suddenly find themselves in very unexpected situations.
blackrazor wrote:
07 Mar 2019, 03:10
P.S. Stop saying we agree, when we don't. I said Platyna offered hosting services (which is all you proved)
So we have established consensus on hosting in general, rather than hosting of eathena@ in particular. I'll go ahead and mentally uncheck step 2 for now.

You might notice the lack of a check on "[ ] Regulations of Platinum Linux Non-profit Server apply to eathena@". With that said, I'm pretty sure that the citations of Platyna invoking those same rules with regard to the eathena@ account, both in saying she could not be sued for eathena data breach and in evicting Jaxad, would make for pretty compelling evidence in a fair court of law.


---Freeyorp
Yes, the contract can be in electronic form. Where is it?

The specific charges would be illegal copying and display, and copyright infringement. Perhaps also wire fraud, since it was done electronically, and that is a USA favorite to apply in such cases.

The three lines I provided are not intended for a specific situation. They would be for every situation, and would be placed within each asset file that already contained the GPL clause, just under it.

More exotic evidence is considered when there is no presumption of copyright claimant. Fortunately, GPL contract already provides for one, rendering all that evidence superfluous and irrelevant. Show me something that actually matters, like a statement of copyright (electronic form is fine) that would override the default presumptions of the GPL contract.

P.S. There apparently are also EU (of which Poland is a member) rules about moving personal data (like email addresses, usernames, and passwords of players) outside of EU jurisdiction, to the USA, for example. Looks like we might have an international incident on our hands.
Last edited by blackrazor on 07 Mar 2019, 04:13, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Freeyorp101
Archivist Prime
Archivist Prime
Posts: 754
Joined: 04 Nov 2008, 10:17
Location: New Zealand

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by Freeyorp101 » 07 Mar 2019, 04:10

The contract that I expect to apply has already been posted above, the Regulations of Platinum Linux Non-profit Servers. It is not signed, but I am glad to hear that we do agree that electronic form is fine. I do not dispute that we have not yet reached consensus that this applies to the eathena@ account.

To be clear, since I do want to make sure I am understanding you correctly, would you claim that if I signed up to an account at sdf.org, and used the GPL programs bash(1) and cat(1) to create a short poem in my home directory on sdf.org, then that hypothetical short poem would by default be owned by the sdf.org admins, barring a contract to the contrary?


---Freeyorp
(09:58:17) < tux9th> Freeyorp: your sig on the forums is kind of outdated
blackrazor
Novice
Novice
Posts: 332
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 14:38

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by blackrazor » 07 Mar 2019, 04:24

If you are running the GPL software, then the outputs belong to you, provided there are no overriding clauses. GPL provides a presumption, in the absence of any other formal claims.

The TMW Server iteration creates output more or less autonomously, but Platyna ran it as dictator (now "former dictator"), queen, "cutter of hands", etc. She has a valid claim to those outputs under the GPL presumption, wouldn't you agree?

P.S. But what if you created a poem in a virtual world run by someone else? Or painted a mural on a wall that belonged to someone else? That's where it gets interesting, but in general, the owner of the virtual world or wall would own your contribution to it.
Last edited by blackrazor on 07 Mar 2019, 04:29, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Freeyorp101
Archivist Prime
Archivist Prime
Posts: 754
Joined: 04 Nov 2008, 10:17
Location: New Zealand

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by Freeyorp101 » 07 Mar 2019, 04:29

blackrazor wrote:
07 Mar 2019, 04:24
If you are running the GPL software, then the outputs belong to you, provided there are no overriding clauses. GPL provides a presumption, in the absence of any other formal claims.
I must apologise again for what must seem like pedantry, but I do want to be absolutely clear about your perspective. By "you", are you meaning the hypothetical me running the programs on my account, or are you referring to the spf.org admins, on whose machines the programs are running?


---Freeyorp
(09:58:17) < tux9th> Freeyorp: your sig on the forums is kind of outdated
blackrazor
Novice
Novice
Posts: 332
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 14:38

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by blackrazor » 07 Mar 2019, 04:33

Okay, I'll try again,

If Freeyorp is running a GPL software, then the outputs belong to Freeyorp, provided there are no overriding clauses. GPL provides a presumption, in the absence of any other formal claims.

The TMW Server iteration creates output more or less autonomously, but Platyna ran it as dictator (now "former dictator"), queen, "cutter of hands", etc. Platyna has a valid claim to those outputs under the GPL presumption, wouldn't you agree?

P.S. But what if Freeyorp created a poem in a virtual world run by someone else? Or painted a mural on a wall that belonged to someone else? That's where it gets interesting, but in general, the owner of the virtual world or wall would own Freeyorp's contribution to it.
User avatar
Freeyorp101
Archivist Prime
Archivist Prime
Posts: 754
Joined: 04 Nov 2008, 10:17
Location: New Zealand

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by Freeyorp101 » 07 Mar 2019, 04:38

In this specific situation above, would you say the spf.org admins were running the programs (as they own the server, have root@, have sole discretion over their systems etc) or that Freeyorp was running the programs (as it was their actions on their user account)?

---Freeyorp
(09:58:17) < tux9th> Freeyorp: your sig on the forums is kind of outdated
blackrazor
Novice
Novice
Posts: 332
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 14:38

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by blackrazor » 07 Mar 2019, 11:23

I know where you are trying to go with this.

Programs like paint, word, notepad, etc are used to make art and writing. These software run only when the artist-writer runs them, and then for the specific task of creating the output of art or writing, which typically the user-artist-writer of said software has copyright over the output, although there can be exceptions where the work is done within the property of another, such as inside of a virtual world, or on a wall in the real world (graffiti), or at someone else's direction like for a movie, series, or play. In all these cases, there are presumptions, which can be overridden by specific copyright contracts.

Let's go back to Freeyorp's poem example. Say Freeyorp started writing the poem, but got stuck. The host took an interest, and offered to help with more than just merely hosting. The now-not-merely-a-host tinkered and slaved, and made the idea of a poem into something functional and grand, on their own machine. In the meantime, Freeyorp got bored, and decided Freeyorp was better at making the software that can output poems, effectively leaving the creation of the poem with the "not merely a host"/writer/artist who continued to have success with it, on their own machine (the host is allowed to work on, and own, stuff on their own machine, being a host does not preclude that), and quite naturally began to feel possessive of what the "not merely a host"/writer/artist had created. Freeyorp, seeing the finished product as a success, wanted to claim ownership of the poem, but the "not merely a host"/writer/artist had already created the poem, on their own machine. The best Freeyorp had contributed to the process, was the idea "Hey, wouldn't it be great if I could make a poem". Now if Freeyorp had written a small simple contract at the start, claiming copyright of the idea of which Freeyorp had some genesis, the poem would still be Freeyorp's. But since Freeyorp had gotten bored, and even three lines of simple copyright protection were too much effort for something Freeyorp had thought would come to nothing, the presumption of ownership now lies with the "not merely a host"/artist/writer that effectively made the magic happen by being the one to run the software, and make the poem, on their own machine.

In another example, even though Elven ripped an already existing program, the Ragnork Online emulator, eAthena, into a virtual world creator, that is not the same as creating a living and breathing and functioning virtual world and managing and nurturing its community over time. That is really hard and ongoing work, which requires a whole different skill-set, and which was done by Platyna. Now if Elven had assigned Elven's special purposely built virtual-world-creating-software a standard copyright of belonging to Elven, then the presumption would be that the outputs would also belong to Elven, in most cases, since Elven built the software special for this task, standard copyright would have granted Elven proprietary and exclusive rights, if Elven had meant to use Elven's creation as a vehicle to create Elven's own proprietary and exclusive virtual world, and not disseminate the software as a general purpose virtual world creator tool for anyone to use. As GPL OSS, there is a different presumption, that the ownership of the output falls to the person actually running the software, creating, managing, nurturing, and breathing life into the virtual world. Even here, Elven could have overridden the GPL presumption by inserting those three lines of text within the project's files, every time under where already appeared the GPL clause. This would not conflict with GPL, since it would apply only to the non-GPL portions, specifically the software output. This would not be a specific act to insure against any particular situation, but in a general and responsible way to insure against any and all copyright issues that could conceivably arise. Elven failed to do due diligence, and by GPL presumption, the ownership of the virtual world (the output of data files from TMW Platinum) are presumed to be copyright the person running them with sole jurisdiction of their machine, Platyna.

The running of software is defined as actively using it for the purpose for which it was created, not simply having it installed with root access on your machine. Although it gets complicated when software runs autonomously 24/7, albeit with constant maintenance, supervision, and ongoing effort. For something like a paint or word processing program, it only runs when an artist pulls the levers to create art. But game servers, operating systems, irc servers, forums run autonomously, continuously creating new output as users (client side) interact with them. If these autonomous programs are OSS, then the outputs are presumed to belong to the person or organization actively running and maintaining them, on a machine under their sole jurisdiction, although any responsible creator of such autonomous software will add in a copyright clause specific for the outputs if they intend that presumption to be overridden, especially if they plan to relinquish day to day operations or take a hiatus from the project entirely. GPL OSS has very different presumptions for ownership of output compared to standard copyrighted software. And software that runs only when you use it has very different presumptions of what is meant "to run it" compared to software that runs autonomously 24/7, continuously creating new output as client-side users interact with it.

To go back to Freeyorp's poem. If Freeyorp runs the software to create the poem, thereby creating the poem, then Freeyorp owns the poem, by presumption. However, during this time, Freeyorp might have interacted with the operating system, forums and IRC (to talk about the poem) on the hosted machine. Does Freeyorp own the outputs of those interactions with the OS, forums, and IRC? No. The maintainers of those autonomous continuously running server-software own those outputs, by presumption. And presumptions can be overridden with simple copyright clauses specific to the outputs, and this is done by responsible persons wishing to alter the presumptions under which output ownership is granted when their software is run.
blackrazor
Novice
Novice
Posts: 332
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 14:38

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by blackrazor » 07 Mar 2019, 13:08

Freeyorp101 wrote:
03 Mar 2019, 09:52
Ownership is, as was pointed out last time, the central impasse. Almost all of your other statements assume that Platyna was the owner, to varying extents. If you do have evidence for this, please do present it. While assertions are nice, in that they can help clarify a position, it's important to keep in mind that merely repeating an assertion does not alone make it true.

Regarding further instances of the representative heuristic (things that X does/does not do), it's important to note that Platyna was more than host: she was also a moderator, briefly a developer, and later lead moderator. The historical record is quite clear about her positions each step of the way; nech rightly pointed out that her forum rank was Moderator circa 2007, though they were incorrect to say that she was reinstated as Lead Moderator by Elven (2009-10-29), as Bjorn gave her full forum "founder" access on 2009-07-06 (though Elven's blessing certainly cemented that position). Moderation being her absolute demesne, absolute monarchy, or dictatorship as you prefer, as I understand it the GMs were rather not happy with working under her at the time.

I'm not sure how you can claim that as there was no written procedure for resigning, therefore a resignation is just empty words. A host stating she's not going to host anymore - or other resignations in other contexts - seems like a pretty clear statement, and there was real activity each time to reinforce that. Her "resignation as TMW host." was already mentioned above, but Bjorn had previously also stripped her of her eA admin access after her previous "Platyna has left the building." resignation.

For reference, and further evidence, here's Rotonen asking Platyna (with her nick at the time set to Blah) to update the server on 2009-01-06 - three months in - and her refusing, pointing him at bjorn instead:
#tmwdev.2009-01-06.log wrote: [2009-01-06 02:27:28] <Rotonen> blasted, forgot the drop protection change
[2009-01-06 02:29:45] <Jaxad0127> me too
[2009-01-06 02:29:57] <Rotonen> hmm, actually
[2009-01-06 02:29:57] <Rotonen> let's see if the community catches that one by themselves
[2009-01-06 02:29:57] <Rotonen> we should probably also have a hidden change every time too
[2009-01-06 02:36:49] <Rotonen> Blah: git pull server data pretty please
[2009-01-06 02:37:53] <Blah> Go away. b_lindeijer is the admin of ea.
[2009-01-06 02:38:05] <Blah> He stripped me of all my rights on ea.
[2009-01-06 02:38:06] <Blah> ;]
[2009-01-06 02:39:07] <Rotonen> k
[2009-01-06 02:39:49] <Rotonen> so we're going to have to do this by the book then :P
[2009-01-06 02:45:05] <Blah> Huh?
[2009-01-06 02:45:06] <Blah> ;>
[2009-01-06 02:45:30] <Jaxad0127> ?
[2009-01-06 02:46:06] <Rotonen> Blah: well, you do have root on the box so you could basically just do anything ;>
[2009-01-06 02:48:38] <Blah> hx m f u cn
[2009-01-06 02:48:40] <Blah> ;>
[2009-01-06 02:49:02] <Rotonen> yeah, so going by the official venue
Pretty clear statements, aside from the final textspeak banter telling Rotonen to "hack me if you can". Emphasis drawn to "b_lindeijer is the admin of ea". As host, she could have abused root to break in, but was responsible enough not to.


---Freeyorp
As an aside, who are you to decide what is "textspeak banter" and what is real intention? Maybe she was really challenging him to try? Or far more likely, maybe all of the text (including everything else you have pulled from her banter over these 60+ pages) was her trolling a bunch of people whom she considered to be "children" and did not much respect. Maybe she was just having fun, at their expense? I don't think you can know for sure, one way or the other.

And that is precisely the problem with twitter and IRC. It seems that in a post-Trump world of "twitter-diplomacy", many of us have become twittidiots or IRCidiots, hanging on every casual, often trolling word, for deep insightful meaning. Even digging into the past to find it.

This is why legal contracts exist. Nobody trolls in a legal contract. You want your rights protected? Make sure you write a contract protecting them, or ensure that the contract(s) already in force have presumptions that effectively protect your rights. Otherwise you have no right to complain.
User avatar
Freeyorp101
Archivist Prime
Archivist Prime
Posts: 754
Joined: 04 Nov 2008, 10:17
Location: New Zealand

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by Freeyorp101 » 07 Mar 2019, 13:42

blackrazor wrote:
07 Mar 2019, 11:23
I know where you are trying to go with this.
Should I interpret this as saying that we agree that, in the original toy hypothetical, the user would own the poem? If so, should I interpret the follow up as saying, now that we have a common base to work from, we should proceed to explore the many ways in which the real situation differs, and what the implications are for ownership?


If so, as a point of order, I would like to take the time to point out that the GPL does not affirmatively do anything special with regards to output. The text of the license itself contains no such reference (besides mentioning output is not covered by the license unless it can separately be shown to be a covered work), and [the FAQ passages referenced] expressly note that copyright does not give you any say over the output of the program.

That is to say, I do agree that any argument of the form "output can be copied because the output is GPL" is clearly invalid, as the GPL does not say anything with regards to output, but I would like to note that similarly any argument of the form "output cannot be copied because the GPL attributes or presumes ownership of output to be the host" is also clearly invalid, as the GPL does not say anything with regards to output.


---Freeyorp
(09:58:17) < tux9th> Freeyorp: your sig on the forums is kind of outdated
User avatar
Freeyorp101
Archivist Prime
Archivist Prime
Posts: 754
Joined: 04 Nov 2008, 10:17
Location: New Zealand

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by Freeyorp101 » 07 Mar 2019, 13:45

blackrazor wrote:
07 Mar 2019, 13:08
As an aside, who are you to decide what is "textspeak banter" and what is real intention?
That would ultimately be for the hypothetical court to decide. Perhaps an expert would be called in, as with the emoji case. Some pieces of evidence are certainly clearer than others, with Platyna's referencing the Regulations of Platinum Linux Non-profit Server to tell bjorn to evict Jaxad being made under particular gravitas.

All up, I expect that the interactions between bjorn and Platyna in particular are compelling enough for a court to find a [contract implied in fact], even in the unlikely event that the eathena@ account was otherwise found to not be owned by bjorn.

---Freeyorp
(09:58:17) < tux9th> Freeyorp: your sig on the forums is kind of outdated
blackrazor
Novice
Novice
Posts: 332
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 14:38

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by blackrazor » 07 Mar 2019, 15:32

It's a shame Elven didn't use those three lines of contractual copyright clause (or something equivalent), placed under every GPL clause within the source files, to clearly assign ownership of the data outputs; that would have made everything so much clearer and simple, and saved us all from 60+ pages of arguing, would you agree?

GPL does do something with regards to output ownership, but it is more about omission than affirmation. Because a GPL program is copyleft, any implied ownership of outputs is undefined and defaults to the person running the software on a machine under their sole jurisdiction. Not a host at all, incidentally, unless the host happens to quality as per above. In copyrighted software, if it is made for a specific purpose of creating a specialized output for the copyright holder, then they can be said to have copyright over the outputs, as well. Certainly not with copyrighted software put for sale or available freely, for others to create their own outputs, that would be another matter with regards to output ownership, more similar to the GPL case.
User avatar
Freeyorp101
Archivist Prime
Archivist Prime
Posts: 754
Joined: 04 Nov 2008, 10:17
Location: New Zealand

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by Freeyorp101 » 07 Mar 2019, 20:25

blackrazor wrote:three lines of contractual copyright clause (or something equivalent), placed under every GPL clause within the source files, to clearly assign ownership of the data outputs; that would have made everything so much clearer and simple and saved us all from 60+ pages of arguing, would you agree?
This is actually a pretty good example. What could go wrong with what appears to be a simple and reasonable process?

Unfortunately, copyright is not a suitable means of establishing such relationships:
Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses wrote:in general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program
Even if copyright was an appropriate medium for contract purposes, the GPL is a uniquely terrible license to try to add clauses to, unless you're only seeking to add a clause with one of the expressly listed effects in GPL sections 7a) - 7f), as from section 7:
GNU General Public License v3.0, § 7. Additional Terms wrote: All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
Oh dear. All of a sudden, our poet's seemingly reasonable series of actions to protect their work (or perhaps other seemingly reasonable actions, like assuming a hosting provider's terms of service covers the relationship between them and their host, if later found to be less than robust) has left them in a place that falls far short of the legal gold standard that they had expected and counted on. What happens then?


Fortunately for our hypothetical poet, we do not live with a legal system from Lemony Snicket novel, we live in a world with a robust legal system with broad discretion and careful jurisprudence that has evolved to justly handle the messiest of cases. Our poet will look back on their recorded interactions with their admin, and may find many pieces of evidence detailing interactions between them and their admin, showing that both parties believed, acted, and made references as if there was a valid agreement was between them. Our hypothetical court may rule that there is a contract implied in fact, from facts and circumstances that indicate a mutual intention to contract. Circumstances may exist that, according to the ordinary course of dealing and common understanding, demonstrate such an intent that is sufficient to support a finding of an implied contract. A fair court will work to ensure a fair and just outcome.

Of course, this is not to say that our poet or equivalent had a privileged position to win by default. Evidence may arise over the course of legal discovery that favours our admin instead.


In a way, it is almost a shame that the real case at question will never be heard beyond the court of public opinion (though I, and I'm sure the TMWC also, do have heartfelt gratitute for Platyna declaring that ["If Elven agreed for that I will not pursue any legal actions."], allowing the TMWC to get on with development without worrying about a negligible chance that a fair court finds they did anything technically wrong), as my inner data hoarder would have loved to have seen the interactions that were only alluded to in public, rather than merely those that spilled out into public. I assessed the situation to my satisfaction to the best of my ability many years ago, but with only one side willing to provide evidence, it would be analogous to default judgement, with all the same caveats.

It is worth repeating, I will always be interested in any new evidence or findings of fact. Anyone is welcome to contact me through any means, anonymous or otherwise. I am more than willing to treat any correspondence in the strictest confidence, should it be desired.


---Freeyorp
(09:58:17) < tux9th> Freeyorp: your sig on the forums is kind of outdated
User avatar
Platyna
Former Dictator
Former Dictator
Posts: 2216
Joined: 19 Nov 2005, 14:19
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by Platyna » 08 Mar 2019, 03:00

Freeyorp, playing stupid is a weak strategy, especially if you take obvious jokes out of the context and try to use them as evidence in a property case. It is silly. Especially if you mess with a time line of quite rich and dynamic TMW history. The post you quoted does NOT mean I have agreed to "TMWC" to stealing my data. To make a long story short, I do require all the unauthorized copies of my data to be returned to me, and deleted from all the unauthorized machines.
User avatar
Freeyorp101
Archivist Prime
Archivist Prime
Posts: 754
Joined: 04 Nov 2008, 10:17
Location: New Zealand

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by Freeyorp101 » 08 Mar 2019, 05:06

I am sorry, but when I read you declaring that you are no longer willing to host TMW, so the servivce will move with Bjorn, but that you are "interested to still host my own TMW server, since there are quite a few people who wanted a fork", I cannot believe that it is your data. When I see you invoking the Platinum terms of service against Bjorn to force him to remove Jaxad, I cannot believe that it was anything other than Bjorn's account. When I read that the TMWC did talk to Bjorn himself, and concluded that you did not own the data, I cannot believe that it is your data.

If there is something similarly clear pointing the other way that I have missed, then I will re-evaluate the balance of probabilities. Until such a time, nothing has changed from my old assessment conducted many years ago. There was nothing legally wrong (I have no interest in subjective terms, you may say rude, disrespectful, or such as much as you like, but illegal is very much signing the Rembrandt) done by the TMWC.


---Freeyorp
(09:58:17) < tux9th> Freeyorp: your sig on the forums is kind of outdated
blackrazor
Novice
Novice
Posts: 332
Joined: 18 Oct 2007, 14:38

Re: The official server flamewar topic

Post by blackrazor » 08 Mar 2019, 12:07

Hmmm does this even work? Why is this not working? Bah, this will have to do.

//imgur.com/a/EgdHIvV

As an aside, the player population went from over 100 online under Platyna's rule, to basically zero now, as the image I took just now proves (me and applestore bot online, all alone, oh yay). You consider this to be a success? The developers and GMs might be happy that they have no boss, but where are the players? Where did they all go?
Freeyorp101 wrote:
08 Mar 2019, 05:06
I am sorry, but when I read you declaring that you are no longer willing to host TMW, so the servivce will move with Bjorn, but that you are "interested to still host my own TMW server, since there are quite a few people who wanted a fork", I cannot believe that it is your data. When I see you invoking the Platinum terms of service against Bjorn to force him to remove Jaxad, I cannot believe that it was anything other than Bjorn's account. When I read that the TMWC did talk to Bjorn himself, and concluded that you did not own the data, I cannot believe that it is your data.

---Freeyorp
When was the last time Bjorn or Elven did any work on the game? Any contributions to the TMW Github? Any development at all? Any GMing? Any moderation? Any events? Any community outreach? The only thing I've seen those two do, was to rubberstamp "the move" (they didn't even do the work, they just said okay) and Elven pointed and later donated the Domain Name. It seems they did far more of a disappearing act than Platyna ever did, so the data definitely doesn't belong to them, so they had no right to give anyone permission to heist anything. Even now, years later after the heist, in 2019, we hear more from Platyna than Bjorn and Elven.
Freeyorp101 wrote:
07 Mar 2019, 20:25
blackrazor wrote:three lines of contractual copyright clause (or something equivalent), placed under every GPL clause within the source files, to clearly assign ownership of the data outputs; that would have made everything so much clearer and simple and saved us all from 60+ pages of arguing, would you agree?
This is actually a pretty good example. What could go wrong with what appears to be a simple and reasonable process?

Unfortunately, copyright is not a suitable means of establishing such relationships:
Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses wrote:in general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program

---Freeyorp
So basically, you are agreeing with me. Platyna used the program, and made the data her own. Elven and Bjorn have no say. This is what I've been trying to explain all along. Thanks! Elven and Bjorn cannot drop in years later and give some hoodlums permission to heist data that is not theirs.
Locked