Talk:Sociopolitical Ramifications

Erm... I think this one should be flagged for NPOV. Additionally, it seems whoever wrote this doesn't seem to know that the GPL is not a perpetual, unrevocable license... Almafeta 20:40, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the GPL, I'm not sure the article actually implies that the license is not non-revokable. According to section 4 of the the GPL, the license can only be voided if the program was modified, copied, sublicensed, or distributed in a way other than the GPL allows. Looking at the article, none of that seemed to happen, just that Winged was had (presumably un-modified) copies of the program.

Not having any additional knowledge about the situation, I don't know how to best word the entry, though. --Dmuth 21:11, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I did some research about this, and yes, it does indeed seem that revocation is possible, and indeed more a problem for the GNU GPL than certain other "free" licenses. The revocation mentioned in the license is automatic, but the licensor ultimately retains the ability to revoke their license at any time (unlike a contract, which is not breakable on such terms due to the consideration given by the other party). Of course, doing so is against the spirit of the license, and therefore this is not typically a situation that comes about, but it is possible. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:50, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Use of revoked works

This phrase was added by 63.107.185.23:

In an event the GPL is revoked from a piece of software, this prevents further distribution of the software under GPL's terms, but cannot require persons already possessing the software to stop using it.

I am unclear as to what legal basis there is for this statement. Copyright covers performance of a work, not just the action of copying. Moreover, it is very likely that copying is occurring, either for the purposes of backup or while actually running the code. Licenses are generally assumed to cover such copying - however, without the license, the right to perform such copies is similarly lost.

I have emailed GNU asking them about this. If I get a reply back, I'll post it here. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 16:47, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It had never occurred to me that running a program could be considered "public performance" in the same sense as performing a song in a public place. I think that's a highly questionable and rather unreasonable idea, though I'd love to see any references to how the courts have interpreted it. Likewise, I believe that copyright laws in the USA only restrict distribution of a work, as opposed to the mere action of copying it. Thus, any incidental copies made while running the code, making backups, and so forth would appear to be outside the scope of the law. -- Zobeid

I believe it is against the law to copy material in most cases, but nobody really knows or cares about it if you don't distribute it (although it's probably possible to think up a case where someone would care). The sticky part comes when you're not distributing it but when you are distributing the results of running the code . . . which may contain copyrighted works.

As to your specific concern, yes, it turns out there is a restriction in US law on exclusive rights that allows the owner of a copy to run it. However, note the lanugage - the owner can do it. But the MUCK does not own the code! They were licensed it under the GPL, and that license has now been revoked. This is why most software is not sold nowadays - it is licensed, to more clearly restrict the rights that are being transferred. The GPL is a license, not a transfer of ownership, and therefore if it is revoked there are no ownership rights, and so no rights to copy the code in the act of running it - or even to keep it. --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:47, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Err. . . Most software these days is indeed sold. Much of it also includes a EULA that says it's only licensed, not sold. But writing that in a EULA doesn't make it so -- sale is still a sale in the eyes of the law, no matter what you write in a EULA. Indeed, the holder of the copyright generally has nothing licensable except the distribution and performance rights. In the case of GNU software, once you've received it, it's in your possession, it's under your control, and its yours. A good comparison would be with a book. The book's publisher may lose his distribution rights, but the people who bought the book still own their copies and can do what they wish with them. As long as they don't engage in the activities that copyright law concerns itself with (namely, distribution and performance), there's no need for a license and no basis for one.

Put another way. . . For a software author to revoke my right to possess and use his software, he would first have to grant it. The law doesn't give him that power -- it would be redundant, because there is no law restricting my ability to own and use it in the first place. Copyright law doesn't concern itself with that. -- Zobeid

NPOV and recent history

Somebody who actually plays there should add a bit about recent history. When I read what is written here, I am glad to have left the mess behind six years ago. I could contribute a lot more, but it would only be about the "golden age" with probably little relevance to what is going on there today. And I'm not so inclined to log in there as a guest to see how things might have changed in the last years/months. - Unci 17:08, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I would say that Benjamin would be most suited to doing so, given that he remains a wizard there. Of course, NPOV issues come up there, but he would have the most access to raw information . . . --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:13, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Who Purged and Who didn't...

Actually, the history is inaccurate. I, Syvel, never @purged, and in fact, SPR still has in it's possession many of the original GPL'd works I placed there. I was brought in after Mystique and Murphy purged thier programs, crippling the MUCK, to help put it back together, and to bring in my colorized versions of many popular muck programs.

I do recall us running the restricted mode, a program which I wrote actually, but I talked to Snout today, and neither of us can remember WHY we did that. Maybe it had something to do with reconstructing.

I was originally brought in to help with SocioSpace, which Murphy wrecked with his purge, but I never got very far. Arian did a much better job than I did.

And I was never dewizzed for @purging, since I never did that. Even Snout would tell you, I retired my wizbit due to RL demands on my time and life, and no longer wanted to participate in the administration of a MUCK. It was about the same time I turned over control of FurryFaire to Snowpony.

The ONLY MUCK I've ever @purge'd myself (and programs) from, was Tapestries, and I was severely intoxicated at the time.

I'd have edited the entry itself, but I don't have a clear picture of what exactly took place then. It was a long time ago. It'd be nice if unci, or Winged, would chime in on that period of SPR history.

On GPL, yes, I did alter the licensing of my works about a year after leaving SPR's wizstaff, and tried to apply it retroactively, but found I could not, so I changed the new license to affect new releases only. This was in direct responce to continued plagurism of my works by unknown parties, but I found copies of my code, without my original GPL licensing or name, but the code was exactly the same otherwise, line for line.

As of this writing however, SPR still possesses older GPL licensed versions of my code, with my permission. When I was signed on as a wizard, I *PROMISED* Snout I'd never erase my code, no matter what happened, a promise I've still not broken, nor ever intend to break. I'm personally honored SPR still chooses to use many of my programs.

Thanks for reading to my side of the story.

History of SPR

Might I suggest adding in the fact that the name comes from an issue of Albedo? I'd add it to the article myself, but I honestly for the live of me can't remeber the issue. *emo* - Ruhemaus

That was actually a question in the "You Know You're A Furry Fan When . . ." list by Terry Knight - however I've been unable to find the answer anywhere. It's suggested that it was an episode of Tank Vixens. Anyone got old copies hanging around? --GreenReaper^(talk) 15:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference predates Tank Vixens by a good 10 years, sadly. :( Let me sometime catch Snout when he's online because if anyone still knows... Ruhemaus 05:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my bad. From Snout himself: We got it from Tank Vixens, the parody comic. Issue.. one or two. Perhaps Tank Vixens stole it from Albedo, but it's the TV one that's used here. Hence the initial line when you connect, 'Oooh, say the words..'

So, yeah. My bad. It needs to be added to the article that the title IS from Tank Vixens, and we need to confirm if it's issue one or two that first used the term in Albedo.Ruhemaus

Founding date

The MUCK's title screen includes: Founded 19th September 1994.

I'd assume this is accurate, considering the source, but we have more than one assertion of 1995 in the article. Does anyone have information to back this? -- Sine 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is "playing with emotions" a matter for the law?

While the writing of sexual poses is one thing, and quite uninteresting for the law, playing with emotions is of course an altogether different matter.. /Gud

Is it? Where's the law? As far as I know there are few places which have laws on the books about emotions, as it's hard to show harm. Civil cases, perhaps . . . --GreenReaper^(talk) 23:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

More history of SPR

Would you believe I totally forgot that I was a wizard on SPR a very long time ago? I was one of the people who first logged in and got a free wizbit. I ended up taking my role there seriously for a while and even took to coding things there. In particular, I took Murphy's hug program clone and totally rewrote it. Is that hug program still there on SPR? It would have been credited to Mer'rark probably.

I also imported the ExtMPI program and made my own additions and modifications to it. This was so I could make improvements to my Vixen Vending Machine on that MUCK, lol.

I also remember putting in a sort of Easter Egg there. They were all references to the movie "Wargames". Like if you typed "help games" or "list games" or "let's play global thermonuclear war". I'm pretty sure all that is gone now tho.

I kind of rage-quit as a wizard there, I think some time in 1998 or 1999. For reasons I don't even remember anymore. I kind of regret that. If DV or Snout read this, I'm sorry for that! Tho I do recall that I was aware of how many others had a habit of taking their stuff with them by purging everything they owned. Before I left, I made sure to change the ownership of stuff that the MUCK was using to another wizard, so there would be no disruptions.

Sorry I'm not putting this in the actual article. I'm at work and don't have the time to properly organize my memories into coherent sentences, much less integrate them into the rest of the article. Maybe I'll do that later if no one else bothers.

--Coyote Seven 19:20, 1 July 2013 (EDT)