Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - Aardwolf commercially violating diku licence

Fiendish · 11-01-2003, 08:27 PM

I took the liberty of asking a lawyer. I know, a crazy idea. Why bother asking a real lawyer when we can all just vomit unqualified opinions?

Here is my question, and the response given so far. More responses may follow. If I receive any, I will post them.

Question: If a software license appears to mean one thing, but the copyright holders say they meant another thing in a logged discussion, but the copyright holders have made no efforts to alter the license agreement that is distributed with that software, what rule should the user follow? Should they follow the agreement or the proposed intent of the copyright holders, even though they have made no efforts to defend their product according to their intent and have made no efforts to correct the license agreement?

Reply: An agreement requires a "meeting of the minds." If the written agreement is clear in its meaning and was entered into by both parties, they cannot now say they didn't mean it. Clear meaning represents a meeting of the minds. Ambiguous meaning permits the parties to claim no "meeting of the minds" and, therefore, no contract.

Reply Posted By:
Sheldon G. Bardach
Law Offices of Sheldon G. Bardach
via LawGuru.com

This means that any claimed restriction on what you can or cannot do with the DikuMud code outside of the strict wording of the license is invalid (This is why EULAs are usually so strictly worded, duh). This means that if you allow donations to support server costs, then you allow such donations regardless of a reward system as no distinction is made in the distributed license agreement as long as no profit is made.

For the record, there is no gross profit made on this venture, so any distinction between net and gross profit is irrelevant.

---
I love you, Delerak, even if your threat is sexist.

11-01-2003, 08:27 PM	#91
Fiendish New Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 19	I took the liberty of asking a lawyer. I know, a crazy idea. Why bother asking a real lawyer when we can all just vomit unqualified opinions? Here is my question, and the response given so far. More responses may follow. If I receive any, I will post them. Question: If a software license appears to mean one thing, but the copyright holders say they meant another thing in a logged discussion, but the copyright holders have made no efforts to alter the license agreement that is distributed with that software, what rule should the user follow? Should they follow the agreement or the proposed intent of the copyright holders, even though they have made no efforts to defend their product according to their intent and have made no efforts to correct the license agreement? Reply: An agreement requires a "meeting of the minds." If the written agreement is clear in its meaning and was entered into by both parties, they cannot now say they didn't mean it. Clear meaning represents a meeting of the minds. Ambiguous meaning permits the parties to claim no "meeting of the minds" and, therefore, no contract. Reply Posted By: Sheldon G. Bardach Law Offices of Sheldon G. Bardach via LawGuru.com This means that any claimed restriction on what you can or cannot do with the DikuMud code outside of the strict wording of the license is invalid (This is why EULAs are usually so strictly worded, duh). This means that if you allow donations to support server costs, then you allow such donations regardless of a reward system as no distinction is made in the distributed license agreement as long as no profit is made. For the record, there is no gross profit made on this venture, so any distinction between net and gross profit is irrelevant. --- I love you, Delerak, even if your threat is sexist.