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

11-07-2003, 09:48 PM

That seems fair, i'd much rather term it a product, but in the context it is put, it actually seems a bit fair to term it a service. Though as you mentioned this is not well established and should be considered as such.

The happy gray medium, I was using USA law as an example as Aardwolf is being the example, and due to the Copyright being under U.S. Copyright. Not that the last actually means anything as we saw from the DeCSS suits, the internet itself is actually somewhat of a legal testing grounds at the moment.

In the end with no more quotes, I believe you have proven that in the specific case of Aardwolf, since rewards are an expectation of a donation then it may actually a sale, and that there was at least in reverse an expectation of profit (by the player).

On the other hand, I don't believe your view that a helpfile is okay is as consistent, to me that is the same as a wearing a i'm a donator helmet. Which, of course, depends on the mud as in some social muds a helpfile about you is a much better thing than a helmet. Of course, if it is a non-expected reward for a donation I really don't care what the item is, which is where the argument is with most people.

To clear up my view on the matter, it's my firm belief that the license was written with the intention of being non-commercial and that somewhere along the lines people helped flesh the intent out. While it is the DIKUMuds team right to modify their license, it is also their responsibility to do so, and to notify license holders of such.

I also believe that a game that accepts donations is not in violation (the circleMud interpretation) and that rewards for donations are acceptable, as long as they are not expected and are not used to sneak around the rules.

I still also believe that while being debated well, the definition of profit as it stands in the DikuMUD is open to extreme interpretation and will always be unless amended or brought to court.

The main problem I see in amending the license is what to do with those already running the software under the old license. The license makes no claims to being able to modify the license or restrict usage of the software anywhere, so the user has not agreed upon it. Nor does it specifically state that they are not allowed to. I believe it would be implied that the license and software are not revokable as long as one follows them (again a matter for a court).

Is Aardwolf violating the Diku license? Given the quote from a player, it seems the rewards are expected and therefore a sale. Though the admin of Aardwolf state it is only a reward for a donation, this would have to be investigated a bit more. Even if it were a sale, was Aardwolf violating the profit condition in the license? I still can't be too sure, it is really a stant still until a court gets involved and based on the country.

The lines are drawn, some agree, some disagree, in the end that's all that really can happen. Without a court ruling there isn't much else that can be done, you can discourage all you want but in some cases, such as Aardwolf, with strong and devoted playerbases it may not do much good.

I do say it's time for a different mud software to take the throne. I'm not releasing mine though... too many code thieves and license breakers! Just kidding... or maybe not.

11-07-2003, 09:48 PM	#156
kaylus1 Posts: n/a	That seems fair, i'd much rather term it a product, but in the context it is put, it actually seems a bit fair to term it a service. Though as you mentioned this is not well established and should be considered as such. The happy gray medium, I was using USA law as an example as Aardwolf is being the example, and due to the Copyright being under U.S. Copyright. Not that the last actually means anything as we saw from the DeCSS suits, the internet itself is actually somewhat of a legal testing grounds at the moment. In the end with no more quotes, I believe you have proven that in the specific case of Aardwolf, since rewards are an expectation of a donation then it may actually a sale, and that there was at least in reverse an expectation of profit (by the player). On the other hand, I don't believe your view that a helpfile is okay is as consistent, to me that is the same as a wearing a i'm a donator helmet. Which, of course, depends on the mud as in some social muds a helpfile about you is a much better thing than a helmet. Of course, if it is a non-expected reward for a donation I really don't care what the item is, which is where the argument is with most people. To clear up my view on the matter, it's my firm belief that the license was written with the intention of being non-commercial and that somewhere along the lines people helped flesh the intent out. While it is the DIKUMuds team right to modify their license, it is also their responsibility to do so, and to notify license holders of such. I also believe that a game that accepts donations is not in violation (the circleMud interpretation) and that rewards for donations are acceptable, as long as they are not expected and are not used to sneak around the rules. I still also believe that while being debated well, the definition of profit as it stands in the DikuMUD is open to extreme interpretation and will always be unless amended or brought to court. The main problem I see in amending the license is what to do with those already running the software under the old license. The license makes no claims to being able to modify the license or restrict usage of the software anywhere, so the user has not agreed upon it. Nor does it specifically state that they are not allowed to. I believe it would be implied that the license and software are not revokable as long as one follows them (again a matter for a court). Is Aardwolf violating the Diku license? Given the quote from a player, it seems the rewards are expected and therefore a sale. Though the admin of Aardwolf state it is only a reward for a donation, this would have to be investigated a bit more. Even if it were a sale, was Aardwolf violating the profit condition in the license? I still can't be too sure, it is really a stant still until a court gets involved and based on the country. The lines are drawn, some agree, some disagree, in the end that's all that really can happen. Without a court ruling there isn't much else that can be done, you can discourage all you want but in some cases, such as Aardwolf, with strong and devoted playerbases it may not do much good. I do say it's time for a different mud software to take the throne. I'm not releasing mine though... too many code thieves and license breakers! Just kidding... or maybe not.