[the_logos]

Despite the fact that I tried to organize a lawsuit against Medievia on behalf of the DIKU license holders I had, foolishly, never actually read the license, instead relying on the interpretations of the license bandied about by Kavir and others with an interest in this area.

I've got a fair bit of experience with licensing, both in terms of being the licensee (technology, the rights to Feist's work) and in terms of being the licensor (Rapture, Achaea codebase, our java client) and have spent countless hours pouring over the contracts for those various licenses and dealing with the lawyers on both sides. I'm not a lawyer and I'm especially not a lawyer who specializes in IP work but I have enough practical experience to have a couple comments:

1. Whoever wrote this license had no business writing licenses. Total amateur hour.

2. The relevant bit of the license reads as follows:
"You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way. You may under no circumstances charge money for distributing any part of dikumud - this includes the usual $5 charge for 'sending the disk' or 'just for the disk' etc."

We can ignore the distribution clause as selling people things in-game, or charging subscriptions for access has nothing to do with distribution of the DIKU code. So, we're left with the prohibition against profit. However, the license completely fails to define its terms and that clause, at least, has no inherent meaning. Everything I write below is applicable in the US and isn't intended for application in other countries as I'm not familiar with the legal codes of other countries or the tax implications of actions in other countries.

If you're an individual and you're running a mud that takes money for any reason, you may be violating the license. I say may be because that entire clause would likely just be thrown out by a court since it's impossibly vague. The law does not recognize the concept of a virtual business (ie where cost can offset revenue in order to turn all or a portion of that revenue) except where there is a stated intention to one day generate a profit.

For example, without incorporating as a company or declaring a sole proprietorship, you could decide that you are going to become a video game consultant. In that case, you could likely get away with deducting the cost of video games purchased (research) but only for a limited time. If you show no genuine effort at trying to become profitable, the IRS will quickly disallow those deductions.

Since hobbyist muds are, by definition, not trying to make a profit, the IRS would not recognize revenue coming in from players of the mud as being offset in any way by costs for running the mud. The mud isn't a business and thus expenses to support it do not offset revenue gained from it. In other words, you are actually legally obligated to report any money you get from your playerbase (in the case of a hobbyist mud taking money to pay for upkeep costs) as income because it IS profit/income.

On the other hand, since profit is so ill-defined it is easy to simply not make a profit if you treat your mud as a genuine commercial enterprise. Form a company, partnership, or LLC, and then just pay yourself a salary high enough that there's never a dime in profit. Or, form a hosting company whose sole job it is to host the DIKU being run by your other company, and make sure you charge the DIKU-running company an amount that ensures there is no profit to the DIKU-running company. There are a thousand ways to not show a profit for the enterprise while ensuring the individuals who work for the enterprise get money.

These are easy, essentially rock-solid ways to avoid violating the license. There's very little room to quibble here too since wiping out profit in this manner is both completely legal and quite common. The movie industry does it all the time, for instance. (Which is a good reason why one should never accept a percent of the front end. Always insist on the back end as it's MUCH MUCH harder to manipulate the back end figures.)

Anyway, the fact is, the DIKU license doesn't prevent people making money from DIKU. Ironically, it just prevents hobbyists from taking money from the playerbase to support the mud (as, again, that money is all profit regardless of whether you use it to support the mud or not).

I'm sure the inevitable argument is going to be that my solutions violate the spirit of the license and in fact that's probably true, though that's purely speculation on my part. I'm not a mindreader. Either way though, it's irrelevant. Contracts stand on their own and have to say -everything- because anything they don't say isn't relevant or applicable. It is, in fact, unfair to a licensee to assume that the intentions of the licensor matter. A licensee only gets the contract and cannot be expected to do anything but follow the letter of the contract. If the licensor doesn't consider it worthwhile to write a decent contract, that's the licensor's problem. It's why lawyers get paid so much and use legalese: Detail and un-ambiguity are expensive.

--matt

[KaVir]

Firstly, yes, the Diku license is poorly written. It was, after all, written by a group of computing students who weren't even native English speakers - all they wanted to do was share their work while keeping it free for the players.

And as to whether it would stand up in court - that is debatable for all licenses, and could be argued either way with the Diku license. Until such time as it is, however, I think it is reasonable enough to accept the authors definition and honour their intentions.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Oct. 12 2003,17:13) Firstly, yes, the Diku license is poorly written.  It was, after all, written by a group of computing students who weren't even native English speakers - all they wanted to do was share their work while keeping it free for the players. And as to whether it would stand up in court - that is debatable for all licenses, and could be argued either way with the Diku license.  Until such time as it is, however, I think it is reasonable enough to accept the authors definition and honour their intentions.

No, it's not reasonable at all actually. People start projects based on the license, not on the mindreading what a group of different individuals thought 12 years ago. It's completely unreasonable to tell those people that they should have to figure out what the licensors meant rather than what the license everyone is so hot and heavy over -actually- says. Further, what the licensors think can and probably does change over time (which is also irrelevant). Licenses are not living documents. They're set in stone.

--matt

[the_logos]

I don't think it's reasonable at all actually. People start projects based on the license, not on mindreading what a group of different individuals thought 12 years ago. It's completely unreasonable to tell those people that they should have to figure out what the licensors meant rather than what the license everyone is so hot and heavy over -actually- says. Further, what the licensors think can and probably does change over time (which is also irrelevant). Licenses are not living documents. They're set in stone.

Licenses are legal documents and only have meaning under the law. You're trying to slap extra clauses and definitions in this license when there are none.
--matt

[KaVir]

The intentions of the license are relatively clear to anyone with a basic amount of common sense. The legalities of those intentions have been debated repeatedly over the years, by people far more qualified than you, and will most likely remain so until such time as they are tested in court.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Oct. 12 2003,17:25) The intentions of the license are relatively clear to anyone with a basic amount of common sense.  The legalities of those intentions have been debated repeatedly over the years, by people far more qualified than you, and will most likely remain so until such time as they are tested in court.

I have no doubt they've been debated quite a bit but I have yet to see an expert weigh in either here or on TMC. I do know, however, that intentions simply don't really matter in a licensing agreement so I'm not sure why you keep bringing them up. Contracts stand on their own and this one does not prohibit commercial activity, only profit.

Instead of this endless arguing between people like you and I who are not experts, why don't we get an expert opinion? Let's split the cost of a lawyer that specializes in IP and licensing and see what he or she thinks. It's such a simple, broken license that it won't cost more than $1000 or so to get an -actual- expert opinion.

Here's a good firm I've worked with before: http://www.dsglaw.com/meet_firm.html
I suggest either Stanley Doty or Rodney Gilmore. They're both excellent. Mr. Doty in particular spends a large portion of his time dealing with technology and IP licenses and I'm meeting with him tomorrow about a technology license, as it so happens. I could happily bring this matter up with him then too if you're willing.

So, how about it? You seem pretty passionate about this issue (even going so far as to host a web page about it and offering to donate to my ill-fated attempt to help the DIKU authors sue Medievia) so I'm assuming you'd welcome an unbiased, expert opinion on the matter. (read: someone who has no interest in whether people use DIKU commercially or not and is a partner-level lawyer with a specialty in licensing.)

Interested in walking the walk or would you rather not have your illusions shattered?
--matt
P.S. Don't take this post insultingly. I was just shocked to read the DIKU license and discover that there is essentially no legal basis for a lot of the statements about what the DIKU license prohibits. There seems to be a sort of mythology that's grown up around the license, very little of which has a basis in IP and business law, at least as I'm familiar with it.

[Hephos]

That would be very interesting to read about matt, unfortunately I'm to broke to contribute.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Hephos @ Oct. 13 2003,01:55) That would be very interesting to read about matt, unfortunately I'm to broke to contribute.

Oh, no problem. No need to apologize for that!

--matt

[KaVir]

As I have repeatedly explained in the past (remember the Tolkien situation? Or the IMC license?) my primary goal has always been to help protect the interests of the creators, according to both the wording and the intent of the license. I have heard the views of lawyers (and people who have claimed to have spoken to lawyers) regarding the Diku license. I have seen your points argued many times over the years, and have studied many other licenses as well as drafting my own.

You agree that hobby muds are violating the license by accepting money, which only leaves us disputing those which are run as companies - and the only one of those that I am aware of is Medievia, which also violates the other parts of the license (such as the credits). So in short, no, I have no interest in giving you several hundred dollars to get an outside opinion on a hypothetical situation, particularly not at this time in my life.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Oct. 13 2003,04:58) As I have repeatedly explained in the past (remember the Tolkien situation?  Or the IMC license?) my primary goal has always been to help protect the interests of the creators, according to both the wording and the intent of the license.  I have heard the views of lawyers (and people who have claimed to have spoken to lawyers) regarding the Diku license.  I have seen your points argued many times over the years, and have studied many other licenses as well as drafting my own. You agree that hobby muds are violating the license by accepting money, which only leaves us disputing those which are run as companies - and the only one of those that I am aware of is Medievia, which also violates the other parts of the license (such as the credits).  So in short, no, I have no interest in giving you several hundred dollars to get an outside opinion on a hypothetical situation, particularly not at this time in my life.

Fair enough. I think I might pay to get an expert opinion anyway, which I'll happily post here and on TMC. If anyone else is interested enough to want to contribute, please let me know in the next week or so.

Incidentally though, hobbyist muds don't have to be violating the license. The solution is very simple and no different from a commercially-oriented solution: Form an LLC or a corporation and just never make a profit. It only costs about $250 to form an LLC somewhere like http://www.incorporate.com.

I'll be happy to help any mud that wants it do this (not that there's much to help with. It's easy, albeit possibly intimidating for a first-timer). Letting muds accept money = better quality, more stable muds and that's good for all of us.

--matt

[Stilton]

lgoos:

Originally Posted by Incidentally though, hobbyist muds don't have to be violating the license.

Until there's an actual legal opinion presented, I disagree with logos' assertion that a hobbyist mud which has ANY revenue (with no incorporation, LLC, etc.) is necessarily violating the license.

In the US, the IRS is a de facto legal yardstick for profit.

For IRS purposes, an individual can deduct hobbyist expenses from hobby income (but deducted expenses can't be greater than  hobby income).  The distinction between that and a business is that a hobby isn't intended to generate a profit. ($500 in server expenses/bandwidth and $500 in donations = no profit, so no income tax)

page 203, IRS publication 17

Just like a business, you're allowed to put a hobby "off to the side" from your other personal financial activity and compute whether or not you made a profit on it.

not a lawyer, and even if I were I wouldn't be YOUR lawyer, so here's hoping for Matt's inquiry :)

Stilton

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ Oct. 13 2003,19:09) lgoos: Originally Posted by Incidentally though, hobbyist muds don't have to be violating the license. Until there's an actual legal opinion presented, I disagree with logos' assertion that a hobbyist mud which has ANY revenue (with no incorporation, LLC, etc.) is necessarily violating the license. In the US, the IRS is a de facto legal yardstick for profit. For IRS purposes, an individual can deduct hobbyist expenses from hobby income (but deducted expenses can't be greater than  hobby income).  The distinction between that and a business is that a hobby isn't intended to generate a profit.  ($500 in server expenses/bandwidth and $500 in donations = no profit, so no income tax) page 203, IRS publication 17 Just like a business, you're allowed to put a hobby "off to the side" from your other personal financial activity and compute whether or not you made a profit on it. not a lawyer, and even if I were I wouldn't be YOUR lawyer, so here's hoping for Matt's inquiry Stilton

Yeah, actually, you're right. I don't know what I was thinking. I've used that provision before years ago when I was starting a movie review website as a hobby.

Thanks!

--matt

[Koryon]

Originally Posted by Fair enough. I think I might pay to get an expert opinion anyway, which I'll happily post here and on TMC. If anyone else is interested enough to want to contribute, please let me know in the next week or so.

Hmm, IIRC there was a copyright lawyer at one of the Meet & Greet's of Ntanel's... if anyone has a log of that maybe his email addy was in it, or maybe someone (KaVir?) has kept it around, maybe he could review this little debate for free.

Just an idea.

[KaVir]

His name is Matthew Becker, a Copyright/License Law Attorney, and he gave his email address as "matt@beckerlawfirm.com":

http://artofbuilding.net/docs/legal.txt

He has given me free legal advice on a different Diku issue in the past - but also stated that it was for personal use only.

[Azhon]

Since DIKU was written in Denmark, does that mean US licence law doesn't affect it? I'm not a lawyer, and have no idea what danish licence law is like.

But since it was written in Denmark, wouldn't a US lawyer's opinion not legal? Of course, I have no idea how to contact danish licence lawyers, so this is moot.

[Estarra]

Originally Posted by (Azhon @ Oct. 14 2003,21:11) But since it was written in Denmark, wouldn't a US lawyer's opinion not legal?

There are U.S. lawyers that specialize in international copyright law. It's my understanding that most countries respect each other's copyrights (member countries are in something called the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention, both of which protect copyrights internationally). I'm sure Denmark is a member of both conventions.

Of course, that's not to say that all countries are members. Read an interesting little article about Saddam Hussein and the great fantasy artist Jonathon Earl Bowser:
Zabibah and the King

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Estarra @ Oct. 15 2003,00:18) Of course, that's not to say that all countries are members. Read an interesting little article about Saddam Hussein and the great fantasy artist Jonathon Earl Bowser: Zabibah and the King

Surely, good sir, you do not suggest that the honourable Mr. Hussein would STEAL something! *horrified gasp* He has his critics, of course, but all they can do is point to little affairs like gassing the Kurds and invading Kuwait. While these lapses in judgement were clearly inappropriate, I think any man who sports such a fetching mustache must be given the benefit of the doubt.

--matt

[Estarra]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Oct. 15 2003,01:08) I think any man who sports such a fetching mustache must be given the benefit of the doubt.

I heard he stole that mustache from that wiley Marxist, Joseph Stalin? (Or was it the wiley Marxist, Groucho?)

[KaVir]

The Diku team are indeed based in Denmark (despite registering their work with the US Copyright Office), and the specifics of copyright law do vary from country to country (as well as from case to case, and - within the US - depending on the laws in the federal circuit). Furthermore, until such time as a license is tested in court, there is no way to know for sure if it will hold up. The best way I can think of is probably to examine other similar cases and see what the outcome was.

However I believe the_logos is more interested in getting a professional outside opinion on how the license is most likely to be interpretted in a court of law. Hopefully he will provide a list of the exact questions asked, so that we can see the context in which they are answered. Unfortunately I still don't believe it will prove a great deal either way - the only way to really know how legally binding the license is is to test it in a court of law.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Oct. 15 2003,04:21) Unfortunately I still don't believe it will prove a great deal either way - the only way to really know how legally binding the license is is to test it in a court of law.

While that's true in a sense that's like saying "If I murder someone, I won't know if it's illegal under it's tried in a court of law." You don't, but if I walk up to someone on the street and shoot 'em I can be pretty sure it's illegal. Certain, no, as certainty is rarely theoretically possible but I can be darn close to certain. I'm not suggesting this license case is QUITE that clear-cut, but it's close.

The contract is pretty clear. It explicitly prohibits profit and says nothing about commercial activity. I understand that you're trying to protect what you believe were the intentions of the licensors at the time but while those may be relevant in certain forums they're not relevant in a legal forum provided the signing parties were in their right minds, not being deceived, not signing away inalienable rights, etc etc. I also have to say that given that you just said you don't think the issue is settled you're pretty strident that commercial activity in a DIKU is illegal.

And beyond all that, it's never going to get to court as the license holders suffer no damage from third parties generating revenue from DIKU. I mean, the DIKU guys clearly had no expectation of value from DIKU. As you say, they intended it to be used for free, etc etc.

--matt

[Hephos]

Well IMO I believe most people (and MUDs, no matter if they are free or commercial) would benifit from a more lightened view of the DIKU licence regarding donations and accepting money. Personally I (we, Mythicscape) would benifit from it in a commercial aspect (aiming for a non-diku commercial game) in such a way that if smaller games started enforcing payments we would have a larger possible customer base.

Commercial games: If hobby muds and smaller games, especially those that is not as well developed as the commercial games (that can spend lots of money developing the games) would start to accept donations or even "force" people to pay2play it would benifit the larger  games. Players would then rather pay for a well developed game than a hobby game that enforces pay2play and hence the larger commercial games would get more customers.

Hobby games: Some of the games (not owned by rich admin kids) would greatly benifit from being able to accept donations for server upkeep costs and other monetary aspects such as for example banner advertisement campaigns. Being able to actually give something back (in-game) to the players that donate would greatly help out these games.

I cannot see anything "bad" with a lightened view of the diku licence regarding monetary donations and in-game rewards for anyone involved... In fact if someone contacted the licence holders and had them to lighten the licence it would benifit the mud community as a whole imo.

Ironically, the only ones I can see would NOT benifit from a more open licence to donations and in-game rewards are the muds currently already doing this (ie aardwolf, medievia to name a few). Atm they get money off their playerbases which they can use for gaining new players (advertisement) and keeping the game stable and running on good networks (expensive hosts). If other muds could do the same, the competition to them would increase.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Hephos @ Oct. 15 2003,04:45) Hobby games: Some of the games (not owned by rich admin kids) would greatly benifit from being able to accept donations for server upkeep costs and other monetary aspects such as for example banner advertisement campaigns. Being able to actually give something back (in-game) to the players that donate would greatly help out these games.

But you already can. Nobody is going to stop you and it's not violating the license. You're innocent until proven guilty and as Kavir said, the issue won't be fully settled until it goes to court, which isn't going to happen.

I completely agree with you, btw. Allowing players to give money to what they love is beneficial. You have to wonder why anyone would object to that.
--matt

[Ilysia]

I do not understand why you find this a big issue. Are most of the most popular muds heavely modified away from Diku ?
What interest should hte creators of diku have in preventing sombody from running their mdu wuch used double as much time on programming than themself ?

[the_logos]

Well, the creators of DIKU have very little interest in it. It's been going on for years and they've taken no action whatsoever.

But, hypothetically, their interest could be in the fact that they DO have restrictions attached to the use of DIKU and those restrictions should be respected. Even if you wrote enough code so that the original DIKU code represented only 1% of the code you're still based on DIKU and that requires that you follow the DIKU license. Indeed, even if you start with DIKU and eventually replace ALL your code, you're still based on DIKU and thus still responsible for the license.

Really, it should not be a big issue. Muds taking money hurts nobody and only helps their stability. Text definitely faces a long-term danger of extinction. Anything we can do (and of course I have a strong interest here) to promote their long-term stability and attractiveness to developers is beneficial to us all.

--matt

[Aardwolf]

Originally Posted by (Hephos @ Oct. 15 2003,04:45) Ironically, the only ones I can see would NOT benifit from a more open licence to donations and in-game rewards are the muds currently already doing this (ie aardwolf, medievia to name a few). Atm they get money off their playerbases which they can use for gaining new players (advertisement) and keeping the game stable and running on good networks (expensive hosts). If other muds could do the same, the competition to them would increase.

I don't know how Mediavia grew, but you've missed the point with Aardwolf. Aardwolf did not grow to its current size based on "taking money from players". It reached its current size doing the simple things necessary to make a mud popular, consistently. At that point it was necessary to accept donations a couple of times a year (read: not constantly) to be able to continue. It also did not grow to its current size by advertizing - until last week Aardwolf has never advertized in its entire 7 year history (maybe one or two usenet posts in year one). We were not even listed for the free voting on this site until last week so probably promoted ourselves less than most other muds.

This is no attempt to debate/justify the Diku license, that is a conversation I will be happy to have with the license owners and/or their legal representatives and nobody elses business. This post is to put the 'history' in the right order and point out that being able to accept donations won't suddenly make your mud popular overnight.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by While that's true in a sense that's like saying "If I murder someone, I won't know if it's illegal under it's tried in a court of law."

Oh come on, that's a terrible analogy - for starters, we're talking about civil law, not criminal (and on that note, your "innocent until proven guilty" comment in a later post is something which only applies to criminal law, not civil law).

But even so, what we're talking about is not even comparible to murder - we're talking about the wording of a license. As you pointed out, it's unlikely to go to court anyway, so what you're basically arguing is whether or not it should be "acceptable" to violate the spirit of the license, if the wording allows for a reasonable excuse to do so.

But then, why stop with Diku? I could see this spinning out of control and resulting in just the sort of negative impact on developers as Medievia has already had by violating the Diku license. Supposing, for example, I were to hire some lawyers to look for loopholes in your Rapture license, and managed to find a way that I could avoid paying you royalties. I could even argue that it was "beneficial" for the community, because it would allow developers to put that extra money into development, rather than giving it to you.

Originally Posted by The contract is pretty clear. It explicitly prohibits profit and says nothing about commercial activity.

It says you may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way. A "commercial" enterprise is generally defined as a for-profit agency, as opposed to a non-profit corporation (which might be a more reasonable argument).

However it's also worth noting that the license states you cannot "make profit" in "any possible way". Well, one "possible way" of profiting is to make a gross profit - that's your profit without any deduction for losses (as opposed to "net profit", which is what you seem to be talking about).

As a side note, some of the Diku derivatives have specifically clarified some issues, such as Circle's "no donations" clause. As most people don't use the original Diku any more, they may well find themselves dealing with people who take a much more active interest.

Originally Posted by I understand that you're trying to protect what you believe were the intentions of the licensors at the time

I am protecting what I know were - and still are - the intentions of the licensors. Until such time as the license is challenged in a court of law, I feel that that is the appropriate way to treat it.

Originally Posted by And beyond all that, it's never going to get to court as the license holders suffer no damage from third parties generating revenue from DIKU.

We've been over this before, Matt, and I said the same then that I'm going to say now. It could be reasonably argued that people using the Diku engine for commercial purposes are taking away money from Diku II (which has a commercial license). In addition it's possible to reclaim your attorney fees and court costs, in addition to "statutory damages" of up to $100,000 per infringement, without even having to establish what damage you actually suffered.

[Stilton]

KaVir:

Originally Posted by Oh come on, that's a terrible analogy - for starters, we're talking about civil law, not criminal

His example was pretty extreme, but his point is quite valid: your continued claims that we can't know if something is ok until there's a court case is ridiculous.

Think about how many agreements you are a party to: rental/mortgage, credit cards, etc.  You don't really claim that you don't have any idea of what your rights and obligations are just because you've never argued about any of those contracts in court, do you?  Sure, some of the fine points might be debatable, but what we're discussing is not a fine point.

Originally Posted by It says you may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way.  A "commercial" enterprise is generally defined as a for-profit agency, as opposed to a non-profit corporation (which might be a more reasonable argument).

Just as a hobbyist mud is generally not operated with the intent to turn a profit, but you attack them too if they accept donations that don't pass some strange requirements that have nothing to do with the license, but are derived from an email from a single one of the authors many years after the codebase was released.

Originally Posted by However it's also worth noting that the license states you cannot "make profit" in "any possible way".  Well, one "possible way" of profiting is to make a gross profit - that's your profit without any deduction for losses (as opposed to "net profit", which is what you seem to be talking about).

I believe that you're confusing gross revenue with profit.  gross profit = revenue - cost of generating that revenue.

For an activity in which the primary activity is delivering bits to the "customer", bandwidth and server is clearly a direct cost. Please cite the relevant sections of GAAP, the UK equivalent, or some other authoritative source if you disagree.

Stilton

[Ilysia]

kavir how do you know what the intentions of hte licensors are ? Have you asked them ?

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Oh come on, that's a terrible analogy - for starters, we're talking about civil law, not criminal (and on that note, your "innocent until proven guilty" comment in a later post is something which only applies to criminal law, not civil law).

The analogy was used to illustrate how silly it is to claim that we have no way of having any clue about whether something is legal or not (nevermind that you have loudly and repeatedly made legal assertions about the license). You are correct about civil vs. criminal law.

Originally Posted by But even so, what we're talking about is not even comparible to murder - we're talking about the wording of a license. As you pointed out, it's unlikely to go to court anyway, so what you're basically arguing is whether or not it should be "acceptable" to violate the spirit of the license, if the wording allows for a reasonable excuse to do so.

I don't care about the spirit of the license as it's not relevant, particularly in a discussion of contract and IP law.

Originally Posted by But then, why stop with Diku? I could see this spinning out of control and resulting in just the sort of negative impact on developers as Medievia has already had by violating the Diku license. Supposing, for example, I were to hire some lawyers to look for loopholes in your Rapture license, and managed to find a way that I could avoid paying you royalties. I could even argue that it was "beneficial" for the community, because it would allow developers to put that extra money into development, rather than giving it to you.

There seems no doubt that Medievia is violating the license. They may or may not be violating the profit part of the license (we have no way of knowing whether they are showing a profit or not) but they certainly do seem to be violating the bits involving proper credit.

As for Rapture, you go ahead and try to find a way to use it without paying royalties. If the contract we use gives you a way to operate without paying royalties then you're not doing anything wrong. The contract IS the agreement, just as the DIKU license is the whole of the contract between DIKU licensor and licensee.

Originally Posted by It says you may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way. A "commercial" enterprise is generally defined as a for-profit agency, as opposed to a non-profit corporation (which might be a more reasonable argument).

A commercial enterprise is generally defined as an enterprise with profit as the goal. Profit as the goal does not speak to whether or not profit is actually being made and the license only prohibits the licensee from making an actual profit.

Originally Posted by However it's also worth noting that the license states you cannot "make profit" in "any possible way". Well, one "possible way" of profiting is to make a gross profit - that's your profit without any deduction for losses (as opposed to "net profit", which is what you seem to be talking about).

I'm talking about what the IRS treats as profit, which is distinct from gross revenue (the US doesn't really use the term gross profit). As someone (Stilton I think) pointed out earlier, the IRS is, in the US (which is the only country I'm talking about here), the defacto, court-accepted definer of profit.

Originally Posted by I am protecting what I know were - and still are - the intentions of the licensors. Until such time as the license is challenged in a court of law, I feel that that is the appropriate way to treat it.

But this is the legal forum. I'm curious where in contract or IP law you find precedent for significantly altering a license based on the claimed intentions of the licensor.

Originally Posted by We've been over this before, Matt, and I said the same then that I'm going to say now. It could be reasonably argued that people using the Diku engine for commercial purposes are taking away money from Diku II (which has a commercial license). In addition it's possible to reclaim your attorney fees and court costs, in addition to "statutory damages" of up to $100,000 per infringement, without even having to establish what damage you actually suffered.

But why are you the one making this argument? Even the licensors themselves apparently don't feel they've suffered damages significant enough to sue, even when offered money to assist in a lawsuit. You can make all the hypotheticals you want but we can all read the license, and the license is clear. Further, it's also clear that the licensors don't believe they've suffered significant damages, if any damages at all.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Ilysia @ Oct. 15 2003,13:35) kavir how do you know what the intentions of hte licensors are ? Have you asked them ?

From a legal standpoint, what the licensors think isn't particularly relevant. The license is a contract, and a contract doesn't get modified by the claimed intentions of the licensor years later.

--matt