|
I'm not encouraging them to ignore the usage conditions. A simple command of English lets one see that the DIKU license prohibits profit, not revenue. Revenue isn't even mentioned in connection with an outright prohibition. Only profit is mentioned in connection with an outright prohibition.
Ahh, great! Then I'm sure you'll have no problem agreeing to change your mind if I pay for one myself, right? (Waits for you to accuse me of finding some recognized IP expert who I can pay tens of thousands of dollars to in order to buy off.) Traithe's idea is pretty good too, though as he points out, not as good as paid advice.
I had typed out a list, but realized that it just made me sound like a braggart. I'll skip this one.
Mmm, yeah, again, I need to refrain from commenting on this as you're going to be outrageously offended if I do.
As to your offer, Chad, I know I'd also appreciate you taking the time to do that. As we talked about, you're not an IP expert at all, but you have a professor or two who is, no doubt. Since Kavir isn't willing, I may be willing to just foot the bill for a paid opinion myself, but I'm not sure. It's awfully expensive and I don't have any vested interest one way or another.
I'd roughly agree with what Kavir in his requests except in that there is no such thing as "neutral information" in terms of interpreting anything. What I'm mainly interested in is a practicing IP attorney who can tell us how a real court is likely to interpret the license. I'd say we need the following questions answered:
1. Who actually owns the DIKU license?
2. Does it matter what Hans & company say about the license after it's been issued, both if they own the license or if the university owns the license?
3. Has their lack of enforcement attempts affected their control over the IP?
4. Does the reported (I've not tested, but I recall reading someone else did) impossibility of fulfilling at least one of the license conditions (emailing them at the addresses in the license in order to alert them that you're running a DIKU) affect their claim to control over the IP?
5. Does the clause about not charging money for distributing any part of DIKUmud apply here? [My note: Hrm, I'm not sure what kind of lawyer we need to answer this question. It's not an IP expert unfortunately though. Perhaps Chad can answer this: What kind of lawyer would one consult to get a reasonably valid opinion on what would constitute distribution of a codebase? Is sending text down the telnet pipe to the user client distribution? Or is it just sending source code to people? Are there even any precedents here? Is this an IP field question? A communications law issue? Something else?
6. What's the definition of profit likely to be used?
7. If profit is defined as revenue, is there any basis for MUDs to collect revenue to pay for server costs or personnel costs or whatnot?
Hrm. This seems to get more complicated than I thought. If you can get a professor to really investigate all of these on our behalf, power to you, Chad. Figuring out who really owns the DIKU license is going to be a particular pain in the ass I think, unfortunately.
--matt
|