The Major BBS Forums (Archive)

Franchise_24 wrote:Any updates on the WorldLink server back up or passing the "hubship" off to someone else?

Thier was a post a few days back about the server is being repaied but it seems to have vanished.

I was curious if 2-3 of us could run as hubs, kind of interconnected with offset matenance times. That way atleast 1 server would be up at all times.

I know Questman is very concerned with keeping it secure. I would be willing to sign needed non disclosure ageements. Being in Canada could cause some problems with funky american tech export laws which prevent the use of advanced software being used in other countries.

Stoneslinger76 wrote:

Franchise_24 wrote:Any updates on the WorldLink server back up or passing the "hubship" off to someone else?

Thier was a post a few days back about the server is being repaied but it seems to have vanished.

I was curious if 2-3 of us could run as hubs, kind of interconnected with offset matenance times. That way atleast 1 server would be up at all times.

I know Questman is very concerned with keeping it secure. I would be willing to sign needed non disclosure ageements. Being in Canada could cause some problems with funky american tech export laws which prevent the use of advanced software being used in other countries.

Does Worldgroup really qualify as "advanced software" anymore?

This is the point I was making the other day. If we can set up multiple hubs, can they be interconnected to make one big network or does each one operate independently? If they can't, all the servers could be placed in the dialer to call the next server if your first one is down (I figured out how to do that). Either way, this is still better than what we have now.

I guess we're no closer to having worldlink working again? It's been offline six months now. Come on, Rick. If you aren't going to do it, pass it off to someone who will!

Ragtop wrote:I guess we're no closer to having worldlink working again? It's been offline six months now. Come on, Rick. If you aren't going to do it, pass it off to someone who will!

I was talking to Questman 2 days ago, the server lost the startup drive needed to boot the raid array. He has a new startup drive ordered (1-2 weeks delivery) and hopes to have it back up and running soon.

Stoneslinger76 wrote:

Ragtop wrote:I guess we're no closer to having worldlink working again? It's been offline six months now. Come on, Rick. If you aren't going to do it, pass it off to someone who will!

I was talking to Questman 2 days ago, the server lost the startup drive needed to boot the raid array. He has a new startup drive ordered (1-2 weeks delivery) and hopes to have it back up and running soon.

I hope you're right.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a prick. It's just a little frustrating. After all, it's been down for six months now. That seems like plenty of time to order a new drive. Looking forward to being able to connect again.

Ragtop wrote:

Stoneslinger76 wrote:

Ragtop wrote:I guess we're no closer to having worldlink working again? It's been offline six months now. Come on, Rick. If you aren't going to do it, pass it off to someone who will!

I was talking to Questman 2 days ago, the server lost the startup drive needed to boot the raid array. He has a new startup drive ordered (1-2 weeks delivery) and hopes to have it back up and running soon.

I hope you're right.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be a prick. It's just a little frustrating. After all, it's been down for six months now. That seems like plenty of time to order a new drive. Looking forward to being able to connect again.

yeah we're gonna devise a system to make next year plentiful, gonna try to get a ton of new games out for both wg2 and wgnt as well as some free ones as well.

The Server/Drive issue was unrelated to Worldgroup.

I don't have a server right now to run the server! I've pinged the former host but obviously this isn't a priority. Sigh.

Should we consider having an Anniversary Celebration for the WorldLink Server being down?

Questman wrote:The Server/Drive issue was unrelated to Worldgroup.

I don't have a server right now to run the server! I've pinged the former host but obviously this isn't a priority. Sigh.

tell ya what send me the spftware ill run it on my ftp server til you get things moving, all that pc does is run an ftp server for my customers as well as the pc i develop worldgroup sqlite apps on.

ill run it til we get organized.

Just thought I'd chime in and say WorldLink has been down since about July of 2011. It sure is too bad we can't get this thing running again. People want to keep the hobby and community alive but seems no one does anything to get it running again....

Franchise_24 wrote:Just thought I'd chime in and say WorldLink has been down since about July of 2011. It sure is too bad we can't get this thing running again. People want to keep the hobby and community alive but seems no one does anything to get it running again....

the nv WL is up.

Post all the info for it then please. And won't things be screwy since we've updated a DLL file to work with Questmans WL?

*Edit
If the other one is constantly working, why don't we *ALL* just change over and then we will be good to go?

Franchise_24 wrote:Post all the info for it then please. And won't things be screwy since we've updated a DLL file to work with Questmans WL?

*Edit
If the other one is constantly working, why don't we *ALL* just change over and then we will be good to go?

just use the original, or extract it from a vanilla install

dspain wrote:

Franchise_24 wrote:Post all the info for it then please. And won't things be screwy since we've updated a DLL file to work with Questmans WL?

*Edit
If the other one is constantly working, why don't we *ALL* just change over and then we will be good to go?

just use the original, or extract it from a vanilla install

Ok, but what is the info to hook up to? Also, I don't even know what DLL Im supposed to replace...

Franchise_24 wrote:

dspain wrote:

Franchise_24 wrote:Post all the info for it then please. And won't things be screwy since we've updated a DLL file to work with Questmans WL?

*Edit
If the other one is constantly working, why don't we *ALL* just change over and then we will be good to go?

just use the original, or extract it from a vanilla install

Ok, but what is the info to hook up to? Also, I don't even know what DLL Im supposed to replace...

oh damn i gotta find it again i wanna say wl.netvillage.com?

It's worldlink.netvillage.com. I've been connecting to it since the other one went down. Only a few other boards on it right now though.

Ragtop wrote:It's worldlink.netvillage.com. I've been connecting to it since the other one went down. Only a few other boards on it right now though.

well lets pass the word and get quite a few on there.

im working with nv right now on some serious mysql stuff where we can have multiple wg servers running on different machines all technically together, meaning users on server1 can talk to people on server2, right now it only works for paging but its a start on bypassing 256 user limitations.

dspain wrote:well lets pass the word and get quite a few on there.

im working with nv right now on some serious mysql stuff where we can have multiple wg servers running on different machines all technically together, meaning users on server1 can talk to people on server2, right now it only works for paging but its a start on bypassing 256 user limitations.

That would be great! Don't ever have to worry about it going down again as long as another server is running. Hope your conversation with them works out for us.

dspain wrote:

im working with nv right now on some serious mysql stuff where we can have multiple wg servers running on different machines all technically together, meaning users on server1 can talk to people on server2, right now it only works for paging but its a start on bypassing 256 user limitations.

Sure sounds like your stepping into the Canadian and international copyright infringment. Bet Vircomm would be very curious as to what you and NV are upto.

Stoneslinger76 wrote:

dspain wrote:

im working with nv right now on some serious mysql stuff where we can have multiple wg servers running on different machines all technically together, meaning users on server1 can talk to people on server2, right now it only works for paging but its a start on bypassing 256 user limitations.

Sure sounds like your stepping into the Canadian and international copyright infringment. Bet Vircomm would be very curious as to what you and NV are upto.

nah if you're referring to DMA connections? this is nothing of the like and besides DMA was being used by unix systems in the 80's what you're thinking of is having rlogin connections connect to a remote machine and send logon parameters, hell thats standard rlogin today with 3/4 of the code required removed if anyone remembers dma you authorized a system to send connections and login info (name/pw) to another machine to play a game or whatever, you controlled what systems were allowed to send dma clients your way, sounds like exactly what my synchronet rlogin server does.

what we have done is allwoed the use of a "database server" to handle all data chunks so when one server has reached its 256 user limit the connection handler sends you to server2, if thats full, repeat until it hits the end of your server farm or it find an available slot, the same thing mmo games do now.

i am running 3 servers 82644801, 82644802, and 82644803 i got users connected to all 3 sysop1, sysop2, and sysop3 and they are all talking to each other using a teleconference replacement.

it still has alot of bugs and i mean alot but at least you can logon enter teleconference and chat with the other 2 systems and interact as if you're right there.

DMA was nothing like this DMA still used user limitations within your activation code all we are doing is when you reach your channel limit it bounces to another server install.

dspain wrote:

Stoneslinger76 wrote:

dspain wrote:

im working with nv right now on some serious mysql stuff where we can have multiple wg servers running on different machines all technically together, meaning users on server1 can talk to people on server2, right now it only works for paging but its a start on bypassing 256 user limitations.

Sure sounds like your stepping into the Canadian and international copyright infringment. Bet Vircomm would be very curious as to what you and NV are upto.

nah if you're referring to DMA connections? this is nothing of the like and besides DMA was being used by unix systems in the 80's what you're thinking of is having rlogin connections connect to a remote machine and send logon parameters, hell thats standard rlogin today with 3/4 of the code required removed if anyone remembers dma you authorized a system to send connections and login info (name/pw) to another machine to play a game or whatever, you controlled what systems were allowed to send dma clients your way, sounds like exactly what my synchronet rlogin server does.

what we have done is allwoed the use of a "database server" to handle all data chunks so when one server has reached its 256 user limit the connection handler sends you to server2, if thats full, repeat until it hits the end of your server farm or it find an available slot, the same thing mmo games do now.

i am running 3 servers 82644801, 82644802, and 82644803 i got users connected to all 3 sysop1, sysop2, and sysop3 and they are all talking to each other using a teleconference replacement.

it still has alot of bugs and i mean alot but at least you can logon enter teleconference and chat with the other 2 systems and interact as if you're right there.

DMA was nothing like this DMA still used user limitations within your activation code all we are doing is when you reach your channel limit it bounces to another server install.

Interesting to say the least and sounds very usefull. Hopefully it doesnt conflict with previous copyrights. I am curious if it would work to connect say a WG3DOS to WG3.xxNT or WG2DOS to WG3.xxNT?

I will see if I can locate the documents re Vircomm's copyright and multiple concurrent/consecutive copies of WG-Major.
Maybee you can start a new thead for the topic.

Stoneslinger76 wrote:

dspain wrote:

Stoneslinger76 wrote: Sure sounds like your stepping into the Canadian and international copyright infringment. Bet Vircomm would be very curious as to what you and NV are upto.

nah if you're referring to DMA connections? this is nothing of the like and besides DMA was being used by unix systems in the 80's what you're thinking of is having rlogin connections connect to a remote machine and send logon parameters, hell thats standard rlogin today with 3/4 of the code required removed if anyone remembers dma you authorized a system to send connections and login info (name/pw) to another machine to play a game or whatever, you controlled what systems were allowed to send dma clients your way, sounds like exactly what my synchronet rlogin server does.

what we have done is allwoed the use of a "database server" to handle all data chunks so when one server has reached its 256 user limit the connection handler sends you to server2, if thats full, repeat until it hits the end of your server farm or it find an available slot, the same thing mmo games do now.

i am running 3 servers 82644801, 82644802, and 82644803 i got users connected to all 3 sysop1, sysop2, and sysop3 and they are all talking to each other using a teleconference replacement.

it still has alot of bugs and i mean alot but at least you can logon enter teleconference and chat with the other 2 systems and interact as if you're right there.

DMA was nothing like this DMA still used user limitations within your activation code all we are doing is when you reach your channel limit it bounces to another server install.

Interesting to say the least and sounds very usefull. Hopefully it doesnt conflict with previous copyrights. I am curious if it would work to connect say a WG3DOS to WG3.xxNT or WG2DOS to WG3.xxNT?

I will see if I can locate the documents re Vircomm's copyright and multiple concurrent/consecutive copies of WG-Major.
Maybee you can start a new thead for the topic.

their copyrights only hold water within the confines of their dma-client/server software they hold no authority over how many copies of wg/mbbs you may run that fell in galacticomm's lap, even when they were reselling wg 2.xx for use with their product they only retained a % of the sale but the legal stuff was within galacticomm's backyard all vircomm can do is make their software and sell it to work on a wg server with a specific act code now if someone is remaking their stuff/cracking etc yeah they can start up some legal stuff but writing an rlogin client that auto logs into a wg server is nothing standard rlogin servers do today anyhow, i mean you ever ran a synchronet rlogin server that wg connects to so users can play door games? same thing dma did only its quite standard nowadays but i think you have misread what we did with mysql its not used to connect server to server its used for a sysop to run a worldgroup server farm each server acts as a bridge for 256 channels so if i have server 82644801 and server 82644802 running thats my worldgroup farm supporting 512 users at a time.
basically right now its early but you connect to server1 which is 82644801 if all 256 channels are full it bounces you to server2 and when you type /# it lists users on both systems by reading from databases server1 and server2 and you can page each other except im losing some of the message in the transfer so you type "/p sysop1 hey whats up?" you receive "Sysop2 is paging you from Teleconference: hey$%$%^"
its not dma like you think, but do do a dma client/server nowadays is as easy as someone fixing the rlogin server to accept login strings.

dspain wrote:

Stoneslinger76 wrote:

dspain wrote: nah if you're referring to DMA connections? this is nothing of the like and besides DMA was being used by unix systems in the 80's what you're thinking of is having rlogin connections connect to a remote machine and send logon parameters, hell thats standard rlogin today with 3/4 of the code required removed if anyone remembers dma you authorized a system to send connections and login info (name/pw) to another machine to play a game or whatever, you controlled what systems were allowed to send dma clients your way, sounds like exactly what my synchronet rlogin server does.

what we have done is allwoed the use of a "database server" to handle all data chunks so when one server has reached its 256 user limit the connection handler sends you to server2, if thats full, repeat until it hits the end of your server farm or it find an available slot, the same thing mmo games do now.

i am running 3 servers 82644801, 82644802, and 82644803 i got users connected to all 3 sysop1, sysop2, and sysop3 and they are all talking to each other using a teleconference replacement.

it still has alot of bugs and i mean alot but at least you can logon enter teleconference and chat with the other 2 systems and interact as if you're right there.

DMA was nothing like this DMA still used user limitations within your activation code all we are doing is when you reach your channel limit it bounces to another server install.

Interesting to say the least and sounds very usefull. Hopefully it doesnt conflict with previous copyrights. I am curious if it would work to connect say a WG3DOS to WG3.xxNT or WG2DOS to WG3.xxNT?

I will see if I can locate the documents re Vircomm's copyright and multiple concurrent/consecutive copies of WG-Major.
Maybee you can start a new thead for the topic.

their copyrights only hold water within the confines of their dma-client/server software they hold no authority over how many copies of wg/mbbs you may run that fell in galacticomm's lap, even when they were reselling wg 2.xx for use with their product they only retained a % of the sale but the legal stuff was within galacticomm's backyard all vircomm can do is make their software and sell it to work on a wg server with a specific act code now if someone is remaking their stuff/cracking etc yeah they can start up some legal stuff but writing an rlogin client that auto logs into a wg server is nothing standard rlogin servers do today anyhow, i mean you ever ran a synchronet rlogin server that wg connects to so users can play door games? same thing dma did only its quite standard nowadays but i think you have misread what we did with mysql its not used to connect server to server its used for a sysop to run a worldgroup server farm each server acts as a bridge for 256 channels so if i have server 82644801 and server 82644802 running thats my worldgroup farm supporting 512 users at a time.
basically right now its early but you connect to server1 which is 82644801 if all 256 channels are full it bounces you to server2 and when you type /# it lists users on both systems by reading from databases server1 and server2 and you can page each other except im losing some of the message in the transfer so you type "/p sysop1 hey whats up?" you receive "Sysop2 is paging you from Teleconference: hey$%$%^"
its not dma like you think, but do do a dma client/server nowadays is as easy as someone fixing the rlogin server to accept login strings.

Very interesting, certainly sounds like a unique utility. I would be interested in checking it out when it gets completed.

If its as easy as fixing the rlogin sever to accept login strings make a rlogin update that would allow it! Wg3nt-->wg3nt-wg3dos-wg2dos maybe even one for major bbs. It would sure make life alot easier for many sysops.

I apologize. Nobody was willing to host it. NetVillage's server was down ALL THE TIME which is why we started our own in the first place.

Questman wrote:I apologize. Nobody was willing to host it. NetVillage's server was down ALL THE TIME which is why we started our own in the first place.

I can find probably about 4 to 5 different people in this thread *alone* that have volunteered to host Wordlink for you................

Sure, but I don't want a repeat of what has happened in the past.

It would require a dedicated server, on sufficient bandwidth, with administration access for me/whatever. I had an Internet provider running the last one and we couldn't keep it online. Putting it on someone's personal network isn't going to work well (from experience).

Questman wrote:Sure, but I don't want a repeat of what has happened in the past.

It would require a dedicated server, on sufficient bandwidth, with administration access for me/whatever. I had an Internet provider running the last one and we couldn't keep it online. Putting it on someone's personal network isn't going to work well (from experience).

I offered 10 months ago in the Thread. I asked a few questions, but I never got an answer.

Does it require a Full WG Installation or is it a Separate piece of Software?

When you say Admin Access, do you mean to WG, or the Web Site Admin Panel (Like cPanel or Plesk) or do you need Windows Remote Desktop?

How much Bandwidth does a little bit of Text need to be passed back and forth?

dspain wrote: im working with nv right now on some serious mysql stuff where we can have multiple wg servers running on different machines all technically together, meaning users on server1 can talk to people on server2, right now it only works for paging but its a start on bypassing 256 user limitations.

Well I'm sure this has already been thought of, but why all the trouble to make a work around rather than modify the actual worldgroup software itself? I can't imagine running 3 servers is very efficient when a single machine could handle thousands of connections easy these days? (if the 256 limit was removed, well programmed to handle I guess?)

Just seems like being able to expand would be more costly having to get another machine to do it? I guess even running them virtualized you've got all the extra overhead rather than just a single solid program?

So I'm guessing there is a reason I just don't know what it is yet.

Iceman wrote:

dspain wrote: im working with nv right now on some serious mysql stuff where we can have multiple wg servers running on different machines all technically together, meaning users on server1 can talk to people on server2, right now it only works for paging but its a start on bypassing 256 user limitations.

Well I'm sure this has already been thought of, but why all the trouble to make a work around rather than modify the actual worldgroup software itself? I can't imagine running 3 servers is very efficient when a single machine could handle thousands of connections easy these days? (if the 256 limit was removed, well programmed to handle I guess?)

Just seems like being able to expand would be more costly having to get another machine to do it? I guess even running them virtualized you've got all the extra overhead rather than just a single solid program?

So I'm guessing there is a reason I just don't know what it is yet.

Actually I was also just thinking... you could use the unix version which if I recall when we looked at it, could go up to 1024 connections on the server, and then you could just rlogin out to various game servers, or stand alone programs you're making that allow rlogin connections? (not sure if the unix version was ever extended to the 65536 connection limit that was hinted at for the future of worldgroup)

Would make for a better single accounting system, that could farm connections out from there to various things if thats the goal? especially if you can do ascii rather than binary over rlogin to keep the paging system and such intact?

I dunno its all fuzzy after 10 years since I last looked.

P.S. or possibly you could use RADIUS accounting and create a module that intercepts the login accounting and checks it against a specific server, thats what we had to do with our old dialup accounts that just needed internet access and we used usrobotic racks that would simply ask vircom's radius software if they were allowed to connect and for how long. that way they never took up user lines on the bbs as they were off on other hardware..

Syclops wrote:I offered 10 months ago in the Thread. I asked a few questions, but I never got an answer.

Does it require a Full WG Installation or is it a Separate piece of Software?

When you say Admin Access, do you mean to WG, or the Web Site Admin Panel (Like cPanel or Plesk) or do you need Windows Remote Desktop?

How much Bandwidth does a little bit of Text need to be passed back and forth?

I might have missed it.

It requires a full WG Installation with a special WL Server module. I'd need to access WG as a sysop level user as well as Windows Remote Desktop to the Windows box itself.

Bandwidth probably isn't that high but home connections aren't reliable and WL is rather sensitive to drops.


Iceman: The UNIX version is long dead. Nobody has the source code anymore - Galacticomm never maintained it and the UNIX guys don't have it anymore either. Sucks. A lot of the #ifdef logic is still in the codebase, but the code post WG 1.0 never had it added-to.

Interestingly, the NT version was built upon some of the leftovers from the UNIX version including the 32bit C-based GSBL.

Questman wrote:

Syclops wrote:I offered 10 months ago in the Thread. I asked a few questions, but I never got an answer.

Does it require a Full WG Installation or is it a Separate piece of Software?

When you say Admin Access, do you mean to WG, or the Web Site Admin Panel (Like cPanel or Plesk) or do you need Windows Remote Desktop?

How much Bandwidth does a little bit of Text need to be passed back and forth?

I might have missed it.

It requires a full WG Installation with a special WL Server module. I'd need to access WG as a sysop level user as well as Windows Remote Desktop to the Windows box itself.

Bandwidth probably isn't that high but home connections aren't reliable and WL is rather sensitive to drops.


Iceman: The UNIX version is long dead. Nobody has the source code anymore - Galacticomm never maintained it and the UNIX guys don't have it anymore either. Sucks. A lot of the #ifdef logic is still in the codebase, but the code post WG 1.0 never had it added-to.

Interestingly, the NT version was built upon some of the leftovers from the UNIX version including the 32bit C-based GSBL.

Any preferred O/S? Windows 2003 or 2008 Server?

Could Dan or someone tell me what DLL file I need to revert back to so I can run Worldlink from Netvillages server? There are about 4 or 5 BBS's on there, and 1 BBS had 23 users, 1 had 10, I had about 18 on mine, but when I join TC there is no linked Teleconference because I changed a .DLL File to work with Ricks. I'd like to change it back and I'd recommend everyone connect to net villages so we can all be running again.

Thanks!

Franchise_24 wrote:Could Dan or someone tell me what DLL file I need to revert back to so I can run Worldlink from Netvillages server? There are about 4 or 5 BBS's on there, and 1 BBS had 23 users, 1 had 10, I had about 18 on mine, but when I join TC there is no linked Teleconference because I changed a .DLL File to work with Ricks. I'd like to change it back and I'd recommend everyone connect to net villages so we can all be running again.

Thanks!

I believe this is the file, galtlcw.dll.

Syclops wrote:

Franchise_24 wrote:Could Dan or someone tell me what DLL file I need to revert back to so I can run Worldlink from Netvillages server? There are about 4 or 5 BBS's on there, and 1 BBS had 23 users, 1 had 10, I had about 18 on mine, but when I join TC there is no linked Teleconference because I changed a .DLL File to work with Ricks. I'd like to change it back and I'd recommend everyone connect to net villages so we can all be running again.

Thanks!

I believe this is the file, galtlcw.dll.

yes.

Franchise_24 wrote:Could Dan or someone tell me what DLL file I need to revert back to so I can run Worldlink from Netvillages server? There are about 4 or 5 BBS's on there, and 1 BBS had 23 users, 1 had 10, I had about 18 on mine, but when I join TC there is no linked Teleconference because I changed a .DLL File to work with Ricks. I'd like to change it back and I'd recommend everyone connect to net villages so we can all be running again.

Thanks!

just go to wgdev/src/apps/worsrc/galtlcw run mknt galtlcw
grab the fresh DLL from your WGNT path with the message file and you're all set.

Wonderful to see Worldlink is up and running! Let's get everyone connected now. We're a community again!!

Ragtop wrote:Wonderful to see Worldlink is up and running! Let's get everyone connected now. We're a community again!!

good deal.

Ragtop wrote:Wonderful to see Worldlink is up and running! Let's get everyone connected now. We're a community again!!

By running are you referring to net villages world link?

Nope. Majorbbs worldlink is running again

Running indeed!

Ragtop wrote:Nope. Majorbbs worldlink is running again

So wait, Questmans Worldlink server is running again? LOFnL! I just switched to netvillage a few weeks back. What is the address again for the worldlink server?

Franchise_24 wrote:

Ragtop wrote:Nope. Majorbbs worldlink is running again

So wait, Questmans Worldlink server is running again? LOFnL! I just switched to netvillage a few weeks back. What is the address again for the worldlink server?

Yes, Ricks.

There's sort of a movement going on.. If we're lucky, this wont be the last good thing to come of it.

worldlink.themajorbbs.com

VeNoM wrote:

Franchise_24 wrote:

Ragtop wrote:Nope. Majorbbs worldlink is running again

So wait, Questmans Worldlink server is running again? LOFnL! I just switched to netvillage a few weeks back. What is the address again for the worldlink server?

Yes, Ricks.

There's sort of a movement going on.. If we're lucky, this wont be the last good thing to come of it.

worldlink.themajorbbs.com

not bad, hoping to have my tele-arena win32 server finished by this week so i can finish up my tele-arena platinum module and ill connect to it
i got a ton of new addons but community has been so dead no real need to plug my products, ill throw a lil bait see what bites.

tele-arena is the only wg module i intend on porting to standalones although i have been asked to do galactic empire and mutants i see no need to port those just make my own working wg3 modules of them.

so when i have the new ta, and tw out i guess ill advertise see what i get.

dspain wrote: not bad, hoping to have my tele-arena win32 server finished by this week so i can finish up my tele-arena platinum module and ill connect to it
i got a ton of new addons but community has been so dead no real need to plug my products, ill throw a lil bait see what bites.

tele-arena is the only wg module i intend on porting to standalones although i have been asked to do galactic empire and mutants i see no need to port those just make my own working wg3 modules of them.

so when i have the new ta, and tw out i guess ill advertise see what i get.

So, you're building a stand-alone ta server? And tw server?

Dont you think that's treading on thin ice?

Rick owns the rights to TA, is he in on this?

And tw, well, as far as I know EIS is still actively selling tw2002, a stand alone tw2002 would compete directly with TWGS.

I still am not in support of anything branded Tele-Arena that is not authorized by me and that includes a standalone server. Sean Ferrell can tell Dan what he wants, but I have a contract with his signature on it and it clearly gives rights to the game and its descriptions, etc (IP) to me. Sean DOES receive a royalty for a simple port, but that doesn't mean he has any rights to the game any longer.

TradeWars is owned and marketed by EIS and they are very protective of their intellectual property as well. While there's lots of old source code on the Internet (TW 2, TW 2001, etc), the use of the TradeWars name directly or in reference for marketing purposes will not be tolerated by EIS. Further, descriptions within the TW universe and canon will not be tolerated.

The argument that the engine for TA or even TW are "separately written" does not hold copyright water. If you use the game's map/world/descriptions, it's still infringement. And Dan can never claim a clean room copy because we all know he's had access to the leaked 5.6c source code for TA and most likely the TW BASIC and/or Pascal code. That exposure removes the potential for the clean room "I wrote it myself" argument.

Aside from copyright disputes.. Why make stand-alone versions of anything for MBBS/WG?

I mean, I thought the whole real point of this site, is reviving the system entirely? (hence the name The Major BBS Restoration Project)?

I think its great people have an interest, but, from what I see, it seems like everyone is kind of doing their own thing instead of focusing on what this site is about?

If you want to make stand alone things, I guess this is not really the place to discuss it?

OhASyS - pheedom.net

Rick, my main question is how do you copyright monster names and room descriptions? Like a warlock or a ogre or a minotaur, or The Cave is dimly lit. How does all that go down?

Franchise_24 wrote:Rick, my main question is how do you copyright monster names and room descriptions? Like a warlock or a ogre or a minotaur, or The Cave is dimly lit. How does all that go down?

I think there's wiggle room in copyright law for things like that.


If i made a game completely un-similar to TA, and had a mob in it called a Warlock, or an area called "The Dungeon", its not similar enough that anyone would have a case against me for copyright infringement.

But if i made a game, called it Tele-Arena, and did my damndest to immitate Tele-Arena in every aspect, then there's a pretty strong case against me.

Otherwise, every mud in existence would have grounds to sue all of the rest. Because when it gets down to it, every mud has similarities to others.

Franchise_24 wrote:Rick, my main question is how do you copyright monster names and room descriptions? Like a warlock or a ogre or a minotaur, or The Cave is dimly lit. How does all that go down?

If you choose to be purposely obstinate and look at it that way, you can't. But the whole together is a unique combination, is it not? Terry Brooks holds a copyright on The Sword of Shannara, even though all of the elements were used in Lord of the Rings?

The map is absolutely unique.

I understand that maps are unique, I was more wondering about names and such. So basically you can use names and types of room descriptions, but when it gets to layout that's when things can get hairy.