Re: [Legal -again-] Contributions

From: Andrew Helm (ashe@IGLOU.COM)
Date: 08/18/97

> Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Daniel Koepke wrote:
> What you say you have been saying all along is not what you've been saying
> all along.

All my original points, (that the CircleMUD license prevents donations from
being made, that I've heard doubt about the validity of the no donations part
of the license and you ought to see a lawyer to be sure, and that it's rude
to break the spirit of the license even if it's legally okay to) still stand.
The only thing that's changed is instead of using all three phrases (sending,
making, and accepting) I'm only using two phrases (making and accepting).

If you just wanted to point out that I shouldn't use the word "spending," you
could have done it in one sentence. However, I believe it turns out you're
the one who hasn't been saying the same thing all along. In your first
message you made the claim (paraphrasing but if you really want quotes I'll
give them) that parts of a license cannot be considered invalid. I thought
this might be your point so I refuted it, and you retracted the claim. You
made the claim that the prohibition isn't necessarily against donations,
but against monetary gains. I thought this might be your point so I showed
that the license did not prohibit donations through a prohibition of monetary
gains, it prohibited donations seperately and specifically.
As I said, if you only problem was the use of my word "spending," you could
have spit it out in one sentence. Please never reply to me again unless
you plan to state what your problem is.

> You have been saying all along that the license forbids "Sending"
> a donation.  You said "Sending" yourself, first.  I responded to your message,
> then.  The way anyone (but you) would see it is that *YOU* have wasted time
> by not saying what you meant.

I have been saying it prevents sending, it prevents the author from accepting
donations, and it prevents people from making donations. Only someone who
lacks basic reading comprehension skills would not understand the fact that
I was incorrectly using all three interchangably. As I've said before, it
would have taken just one sentence for you to point out my misuse of the
word "spending." Oh, just for reference here's a count (only e-mails
before I noticed the mistake of using the word "sending" count, just
to be fair. :)

Times I asserted the license prevents:
              "spending":  3 times
              "accepting": 5 times
              "making":    2 times

It's clear I was making use of all three terms, including the
incorrect term "spending." Next time, if you have a pedantic
problem, such as my use of one word over the other, just spit
it out in one sentence. It's easier on me, it's easier on you,
and it's easier on the list.

> But I doubt that's what you meant.  I think
> more likely you have changed your argument.

The archives are at
Feel free to provide quotes with your blatant assertions.

> So, were all these e-mails about the word "Sending".  You can make it sound
> like I've been arguing over trivial things after the discussion is over, but
> what you have been saying is the problem.  If you didn't mean "people can't
> send donations" then you shouldn't have said, "people can't send donations."
> You are the one that has wasted time.

I don't care who's fault it is, just don't ever reply to me again
unless you plan to specifically state what problems you have. As
I said, all three of the points I made to the original poster stand,
the only thing that has changed is I'm not using the word "spending."

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST