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

11-06-2003, 11:06 AM

Amazingly enough you obviously haven't read any of the forums, go take a quick refresher. Quite a few who were in the original topic have nothing (truly, unless you go off on paranoid tangents) to win from weakening the license.

Much the troll we are, hmm? You believe you are actually helping any cause? Regardless, to your points. Of course we aren't discussing morals, we are in a LEGAL ISSUES forum, to discuss the legality of an item, not the morality.

I have been questioned about my motives and responded, again, refer yourself to the other thread and do some homework.

Alright, let's bring it down a level then.

1. You are in a Legal Issues Forum on a MUD board.
2. The legality of a license is being discussed.
3. Blathering, Whining, Zealotry, etc. is all pointless as the issue has never been to court.

Alastair, while I understand that the reading of this current thread (as presented in your outline) has been quite ludicrous, it does not change the fact that this is a legal forum. People may be disgusted all they want, but in reality legality over-rules "spirit" when concerning contracts/licenses, but continue mud-slinging until it goes to court. If nothing else, it provides for a fun read and a neat way to waste time.

-----

It seems to me that many people are going to extremes to break down the license into as many sub-levels as they can to examine them. I'm sorry, but that is not how things will work. Unlike the other thread, this one has gone downhill with a bunch of zealots posting ridiculous drivel.

The license is WEAK, no one needs to TRY to weaken it. The license would probably not hold up to court scrutiny, and if it did would more than likely be construed as "non-commercial" usage only. Pretending that hidden within the texts of the license are various implied conditions is quite another stretch, but coupled with posts of later dates it paints their intent as it stands now. The question is, as with any license, was it readily noticeable that the intent of the implied condition was present at the time of creation of the license. Using the Officious bystander test would be the only sure way of doing this, anybody volunteer to conduct it? Would we believe you? So again we would have to go to a court to define the implied conditions.

My viewpoint:

The DIKUMud software, while in wide usage, is still a dogged out codebase, the reason it received such wide popularity is due to the fact that it facilitated stock set-ups. While other mud servers/libs did much to prevent this (i.e. George Reese and pulling the Nightmare codebase, due to stock LP's) or were hard to program/create (CoolMud, MOO, LP) a game in. Of course you could download LIBS for LP or CORES for Cool/Moo/etc they were still harder to get accustomed to.

I fail to see why anyone would really want to start a commercial DIKU (or deriv) mud, unless they made extensive modifications to it, at which point they might as well have written their own codebase. As a player I wouldn't play a $Diku.

Accepting donations in my book is fine, giving in-game rewards for donation.. while it may break the "spirit" of the license, it is still debateable whether it breaks the license itself.

Kavir, on Gross-Profit:
In the examples given, we are using a mud that sells in-game items for real money. I'm still not sure this would apply to the situation, but as we saw the final outcome that determines gross profit is "Net Receipts - Cost of Goods Sold", i'm convinced that the mud could set a standard rate on coding, maybe based off of regional contract programming rates and charge at (Custom Coding Costs * Amt. Time of Coding = Cost of Item) which in the end if balanced would set their gross profits to 0.

Opinionated Note: For general knowledge, arguing/debating the license shouldn't weaken it unless it is proven wrong. Quite the reverse actually, the license as it stands is in a state where it would have to go to court to be weakened, though a strong community stands behind the intent of it. Even, hypothetically, if it does go to court it still will be able to be re-written.

John: No, Alastair just attacks at random =)

Sinuhe: Interesting viewpoint on free mud vs. commercial mud, care to start another thread about it?

11-06-2003, 11:06 AM	#141
kaylus1 Posts: n/a	Amazingly enough you obviously haven't read any of the forums, go take a quick refresher. Quite a few who were in the original topic have nothing (truly, unless you go off on paranoid tangents) to win from weakening the license. Much the troll we are, hmm? You believe you are actually helping any cause? Regardless, to your points. Of course we aren't discussing morals, we are in a LEGAL ISSUES forum, to discuss the legality of an item, not the morality. I have been questioned about my motives and responded, again, refer yourself to the other thread and do some homework. Alright, let's bring it down a level then. 1. You are in a Legal Issues Forum on a MUD board. 2. The legality of a license is being discussed. 3. Blathering, Whining, Zealotry, etc. is all pointless as the issue has never been to court. Alastair, while I understand that the reading of this current thread (as presented in your outline) has been quite ludicrous, it does not change the fact that this is a legal forum. People may be disgusted all they want, but in reality legality over-rules "spirit" when concerning contracts/licenses, but continue mud-slinging until it goes to court. If nothing else, it provides for a fun read and a neat way to waste time. ----- It seems to me that many people are going to extremes to break down the license into as many sub-levels as they can to examine them. I'm sorry, but that is not how things will work. Unlike the other thread, this one has gone downhill with a bunch of zealots posting ridiculous drivel. The license is WEAK, no one needs to TRY to weaken it. The license would probably not hold up to court scrutiny, and if it did would more than likely be construed as "non-commercial" usage only. Pretending that hidden within the texts of the license are various implied conditions is quite another stretch, but coupled with posts of later dates it paints their intent as it stands now. The question is, as with any license, was it readily noticeable that the intent of the implied condition was present at the time of creation of the license. Using the Officious bystander test would be the only sure way of doing this, anybody volunteer to conduct it? Would we believe you? So again we would have to go to a court to define the implied conditions. My viewpoint: The DIKUMud software, while in wide usage, is still a dogged out codebase, the reason it received such wide popularity is due to the fact that it facilitated stock set-ups. While other mud servers/libs did much to prevent this (i.e. George Reese and pulling the Nightmare codebase, due to stock LP's) or were hard to program/create (CoolMud, MOO, LP) a game in. Of course you could download LIBS for LP or CORES for Cool/Moo/etc they were still harder to get accustomed to. I fail to see why anyone would really want to start a commercial DIKU (or deriv) mud, unless they made extensive modifications to it, at which point they might as well have written their own codebase. As a player I wouldn't play a $Diku. Accepting donations in my book is fine, giving in-game rewards for donation.. while it may break the "spirit" of the license, it is still debateable whether it breaks the license itself. Kavir, on Gross-Profit: In the examples given, we are using a mud that sells in-game items for real money. I'm still not sure this would apply to the situation, but as we saw the final outcome that determines gross profit is "Net Receipts - Cost of Goods Sold", i'm convinced that the mud could set a standard rate on coding, maybe based off of regional contract programming rates and charge at (Custom Coding Costs * Amt. Time of Coding = Cost of Item) which in the end if balanced would set their gross profits to 0. Opinionated Note: For general knowledge, arguing/debating the license shouldn't weaken it unless it is proven wrong. Quite the reverse actually, the license as it stands is in a state where it would have to go to court to be weakened, though a strong community stands behind the intent of it. Even, hypothetically, if it does go to court it still will be able to be re-written. John: No, Alastair just attacks at random =) Sinuhe: Interesting viewpoint on free mud vs. commercial mud, care to start another thread about it?