Whoa.. that's not what I'm "assuming".  I'm not assuming precedent.  I'm "assuming" the the builders granted permission under the Diku license, not that there is an implied license to areas.  There's a difference.  Nor is it an assumed or traditional mud community practice that content shipped with a codebase comes under the same license.  It happens to occur in only one branch of the mud tree.  You realise that LP mudlibs, MOO cores and Mush libs more often than not fall under different licenses.  Sometimes they are distributed separately but sometimes together under one or more licenses.  Then we have the Aber zone wars of old, some recent.

I agree with the argument with usenet posts and email, because quoting is reasonable, expected use. and common practice.   When author's publish a novel they expect review, comment and criticism, that is "fair use" that has been codified into law.   The email and usenet assumptions of "fair use" haven't been codified into law yet, however they probably will be at some time or be ipso facto supported via legal precedent anyway.

No I disagree, and I think Matt made a good point in a prior post where he stated you take community practices much further.  One can infer those practices from how literary works are treated across other media.  There is no assumption by movie makers they can use a an authors work in a movie, the assumption isn't made by cartoon makers, nor by television and radio producers.   If community practices are the guide, the SOURCE of the material is usually the guideline for practices.