[nhl]

Not only are you assuming some universal contract law (which does not exist), but I think we may have misunderstood each other.

If a court decides that the DIKU license does indeed only apply to making profit by direct distribution or resale of the DIKU engine, it does not necessarily invalidate the rest of the license, including the provisions of setting up a DikuMud and altering the DikuMud sourcecode.

So one plausible scenario is that a court would find that the resale of the Diku Engine is against the license, whereas charging for content running on it isn't. The rest of the license wouldn't be void. Other provisions which weaken the case of upholding the license, is where the MUD operator is claimed to be violating agreements which he/she is not part of (between the DIKU team and the University) and which implies legal action.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (nhl @ Mar. 30 2006,01:15) Not only are you assuming some universal contract law (which does not exist), but I think we may have misunderstood each other.

No, I think you're missing the point - contract law doesn't apply. The Diku licence is not a contract.

Also note that (cited from the link I gave earlier) "Because the licensee hasn't given any consideration in exchange for the software, the licence can be revoked by the licensor at any time simply by giving notice to the licensee".

[nhl]

As I'm not a legal expert (are you?) I can only reiterate what the lawyers I have consulted on this matter have told me - that not only is the DIKU license in its current form not likely to hold up in most courts in the EU, and that most likely the DIKU team would not be in a position to withdraw the rights to use the DIKU engine either.

I'll quote a little from the very same document you linked (especially note the last statement):

Originally Posted by So what kind of licence conditions can we legally impose on the use of open source software, in the absence of a contract? In general, we can impose conditions that restrict the right to copy the software, because this is one of the exclusive rights that copyright grants to the licensor. We can also impose conditions that restrict the licensee's ability to modify the software. But we probably cannot restrict their right to run the software, nor require them to destroy their copy of the software if the licence is revoked, or require them to allow the licensor into their premises to perform a software audit, because these are not rights that the licensor possesses under copyright law.

Furthermore...

Originally Posted by Because there is no enforceable contract, if the licence conditions are breached, the licensor's action against the licensee is simply an action for breach of copyright. A court hearing such an action is entitled to refuse to enforce a licence condition (or to award damages for its breach) if it goes too far outside the scope of copyright law and into the realm of private ordering. The only guide that we have is that in order to be enforceable, a licence condition must be "reasonable". Given the dearth of authority on what amount to "reasonable" software licence conditions, the enforceability of a given condition can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.

So again, there is no universal truth about license disputes. The DIKU license certainly contains some rather unorthodox licence conditions (including references to login screens and 'credits' commands). But I am no lawyer, only reiterating what lawyers have told me (don't shoot the messenger

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by As I'm not a legal expert (are you?) I can only reiterate what the lawyers I have consulted on this matter have told me - that not only is the DIKU license in its current form not likely to hold up in most courts in the EU, and that most likely the DIKU team would not be in a position to withdraw the rights to use the DIKU engine either.

Well the link I provided was also written by a lawyer, and he was pretty clear on the fact that "Because the licensee hasn't given any consideration in exchange for the software, the licence can be revoked by the licensor at any time simply by giving notice to the licensee" (Wood v Leadbitter (1845) 13 M & W 838).

Originally Posted by I'll quote a little from the very same document you linked (especially note the last statement):

That you can't restrict their right to run the software or delete their copy, because those aren't rights under copyright law?

True. However you could prevent them making backups (copy), recompiling (copy/derivative), releasing it (distribution), allowing anyone to play (perform/display), etc. Without those rights they might as well not have the mud.

Regarding the "reasonable" software conditions thing, see further down:

Are these conditions enforceable? Although an authoritative answer cannot be given until the GPL is tested in court, all indications are that these are exactly the kind of conditions that can be successfully attached to a non-contractual software licence, since they only affect the distribution and modification of the software, which are within the right of the copyright owner to control.

Well, copyright also gives the right "To perform the work publicly" and "To display the copyrighted work publicly". And you're going to need those rights if you want anyone to play your mud.

[nhl]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Mar. 29 2006,20<!--emo&[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img])]Well the link I provided was also written by a lawyer, and he was pretty clear on the fact that "Because the licensee hasn't given any consideration in exchange for the software, the licence can be revoked by the licensor at any time simply by giving notice to the licensee" (Wood v Leadbitter (1845) 13 M & W 838).

Last I checked, neither Australia nor the US were part of the EU, and the person who wrote the article is looking at it from an Australian perspective, backing it up with legal cases from the US. There is no international standard according to which contract or copyright disputes is solidly enforced in every country.

Originally Posted by That you can't restrict their right to run the software or delete their copy, because those aren't rights under copyright law? True.  However you could prevent them making backups (copy), recompiling (copy/derivative), releasing it (distribution), allowing anyone to play (perform/display), etc.  Without those rights they might as well not have the mud.

That's questionable. First of all, the document you linked also lists some mitigating factors. Of particular interest is the Estoppel, which would likely apply to situations where the licensor (Diku) attempts to modify or revoke the license from a single licensee (MUD).

Second, I am not convinced that using the engine to run a MUD would legally constitute a display of the MUD engine (though I guess a DikuMUD might be an exception, given how much of the actual game logic is embedded in the driver), anymore than  running your own java application is displaying the Java platform or running anything on a Linux server constitutes diplaying the Linux platform. Largely, it would be a question of what do the users see -- is it the standard DikuMUD interface, or content created by the MUD?

If this truly were an issue, I doubt any company (with enough lawyers) would be developing anything commercial on non-commercial platforms (like java applications) -- to me as a layman, the article you are linking to, is a bit on the dramatic side to provide a punch at Australia's national Linux conference.

Originally Posted by Well, copyright also gives the right "To perform the work publicly" and "To display the copyrighted work publicly".  And you're going to need those rights if you want anyone to play your mud.

Again, you are quoting a US law (Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright act), where I was refering to the situation in the EU. But even if you go with the US laws, those rights are not absolute (as an example, section 107 describes the "fair use" if copyrighted works). As I stated above, it is questionable if running a MUD would constitute "performing the work (driver) publicly". What you are displaying is the content running on it (that is what the player sees, right?), which is usually copyrighted by the MUD owner and the MUD developers.

[the_logos]

NHL wrote:

Originally Posted by I can only reiterate what the lawyers I have consulted on this matter have told me - that not only is the DIKU license in its current form not likely to hold up in most courts in the EU, and that most likely the DIKU team would not be in a position to withdraw the rights to use the DIKU engine either.

I've been told the same thing by IP specialists here in the US.

Originally Posted by Well the link I provided was also written by a lawyer

There's a bit of a difference there. A layman reading general legal principles is far different from receiving directed advice on a specific situation from an expert in that area of law. When you want quality legal advice you don't, with all due respect, just google up general legal principles on the web. You hire someone qualified to provide you with an expert opinion on your specific issue, because chances are, as a layman, you (the generic you) are missing many things that someone with expertise will not.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (nhl @ Mar. 30 2006,07:32) There is no international standard according to which contract or copyright disputes is solidly enforced in every country.

BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

Originally Posted by That's questionable. First of all, the document you linked also lists some mitigating factors. Of particular interest is the Estoppel, which would likely apply to situations where the licensor (Diku) attempts to modify or revoke the license from a single licensee (MUD).

There "may be scope" - if the licencee could prove they'd been mislead into "relying on the continuance of the existing terms". The Diku team could clarify the wording of the licence, but if that failed to hold up, they could simply revoke it for everyone.

Originally Posted by Second, I am not convinced that using the engine to run a MUD would legally constitute a display of the MUD engine (though I guess a DikuMUD might be an exception, given how much of the actual game logic is embedded in the driver), anymore than running your own java application is displaying the Java platform or running anything on a Linux server constitutes diplaying the Linux platform. Largely, it would be a question of what do the users see -- is it the standard DikuMUD interface, or content created by the MUD?

If you removed all of the stock areas, stock messages, help files, etc, so that nothing stock (or derived) was displayed to the users, then perhaps that would work (assuming the Diku-derived code wasn't considered part of the public "performance"). However you'd have to change the messages before the licence was revoked - otherwise you'd lose the right to recompile with the new messages (it's been argued before about whether compiling creates a copy or a derivative work, but both are rights protected by copyright law, so in this case the point is moot). The mud would also be an evolutionary dead-end, as you'd no longer be allowed to change it, or even make backups.

Originally Posted by Again, you are quoting a US law (Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright act), where I was refering to the situation in the EU.

The copyright law is very similar, as the US and EU both follow the Berne Convention.

Originally Posted by But even if you go with the US laws, those rights are not absolute (as an example, section 107 describes the "fair use" if copyrighted works).

Yeah, great. You could quote small sections of the Diku code "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research". It was a good way for me to post sections of the Medievia source code in order to prove it was Diku derived. It won't simply let you use the codebase for anything you wish!

Originally Posted by As I stated above, it is questionable if running a MUD would constitute "performing the work (driver) publicly". What you are displaying is the content running on it (that is what the player sees, right?), which is usually copyrighted by the MUD owner and the MUD developers.

We're talking about Diku here, not LP. LP breaks the mud down into a separate driver and mudlib - but in a Diku, they are both the same thing (the entire game is hardcoded). And yes, the mud developers (not necessarily the owner) would own the copyright to their changes, but the mud itself would be a derivative work.

[nhl]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Mar. 30 2006) Originally Posted by There is no international standard according to which contract or copyright disputes is solidly enforced in every country. BERNE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF LITERARY AND ARTISTIC WORKS (Paris Text 1971)

The Berne convention (which, btw is nowadays handled by WIPO) is not a de facto law. Various provisions of it have been implmented into national legislation, but there are variations. Heck, there are even variations in how copyright is interpretted in different states of the US. To quote an URL you pasted yourself (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#icp):

Originally Posted by There is no such thing as an "international copyright" that will automatically protect an author's writings throughout the entire world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends, basically, on the national laws of that country. However, most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions.

So yes, there are conventions that simplify things, but there are still big variations at national (and state) level. Feel free to consult any lawyer with international experience in these matters, and I'm pretty sure he/she will concur.

I don't know why I'm really replying to these, as I don't have any personal interest in DIKU's myself, and it feels silly that two laymans with no legal experience is debating over matters like this by providing links and quotes to cases with little to no bearing on this issue. Two geeks (with no experience of litigation) fighting over legal matters is somewhat pointless

Nonetheless, I will (again) try to get ahold of a few lawyers who have worked extensively with international copyright and ipr matters, to get a more experienced opinion than my own. But thus far it seems like the opinions I have gotten from them, are in line with what lawyers have told Matt (IR) and the guys/girls at Medievia, whereas your view is backed by links to generalized documents which doesn't deal with the DIKU case. Guess which I'd bet my money on in a court of law?

[KaVir]

However "The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights." (ref)

It doesn't cover every country, but the points mentioned here are going to apply to the vast majority of muds currently in operation. Aardwolf and Medievia are both located in the US, for example - and DikuMUD is registered with the US Copyright Office.

Originally Posted by Nonetheless, I will (again) try to get ahold of a few lawyers who have worked extensively with international copyright and ipr matters, to get a more experienced opinion than my own. But thus far it seems like the opinions I have gotten from them, are in line with what lawyers have told Matt (IR) and the guys/girls at Medievia, whereas your view is backed by links to generalized documents which doesn't deal with the DIKU case.

Oh I've heard plenty of people claim they've spoken to lawyers, on all sides of the debate, and the only thing they really have in common is that they all back up what that person wants to hear. The Medievia 'lawyers', for example, supposedly claim that Medievia no longer has to follow any part of the licence. Other lawyers apparently claim that only the 'profit' clause is unenforcable. Other lawyers claim that Diku team have good grounds for legal action should they wish to take it.

The EverQuest situation indicates two important points to me, however: (1) The Diku team are prepared to take action if they feel the situation is worthwhile, and (2) the licence holds sufficient strength that it cannot be simply ignored (like Medievia does) - otherwise the EverQuest people wouldn't have responded the way they did.

[nhl]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Mar. 30 2006) However "The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other's citizens' copyrights." (ref)

There are nonetheless big differences in the copyright legislation of different countries. For example, in Finland it is considered "fair use" to make copies of musical works (not software) for your own personal use (for example, someone lends you an original cd, from which you are then legally allowed to make a copy for personal use), something which to my understanding the US copyright laws do not recognize.

Originally Posted by Oh I've heard plenty of people claim they've spoken to lawyers, on all sides of the debate, and the only thing they really have in common is that they all back up what that person wants to hear.  The Medievia 'lawyers', for example, supposedly claim that Medievia no longer has to follow any part of the licence.  Other lawyers apparently claim that only the 'profit' clause is unenforcable.  Other lawyers claim that Diku team have good grounds for legal action should they wish to take it.

I have no reason to believe that any of the lawyers I have spoken to, would sweettalk me about their view of the DIKU license, given that neither I nor they have any financial interest in it (nor am I paying them to prepare legal statements on the matter). Thus far we've presented claims from lawyers who think the DIKU license is unenforcable (which seems to be a common claim from both my side, IR and Medievia) -- I would love to hear which lawyers have actually claimed that specifically the DIKU team has a good ground for legal action. Maybe you can provide some reference on that (and not a link to documentation about copyrights in general)?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I have no reason to believe that any of the lawyers I have spoken to, would sweettalk me about their view of the DIKU license, given that neither I nor they have any financial interest in it (nor am I paying them to prepare legal statements on the matter).

However it very much depends on how the question is phrased and what information they are given.

Originally Posted by Thus far we've presented claims from lawyers who think the DIKU license is unenforcable (which seems to be a common claim from both my side, IR and Medievia) -- I would love to hear which lawyers have actually claimed that specifically the DIKU team has a good ground for legal action.

There have been around 4 or 5 people over the years who have claimed they've spoken to lawyers who said the Diku licence was enforcable, although obviously that's no more verifiable than any of the counter-claims (i.e., on all sides there's no more proof than "I spoke to a lawyer and he said..."). I've also spoken to a lawyer myself, although I was told that his response didn't constitute legal advice and that I couldn't pass it on, which made the exercise somewhat pointless.

[nhl]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Mar. 30 2006) However it very much depends on how the question is phrased and what information they are given.

I agree. I tried to remain factual and provide all the relevant info I had, but I guess it's quite difficult to remain 100% objective at all times.

If there really has been 4 to 5 people who really have discussed the Diku case with legal experts and they have been told that the Diku team could enforce the existing license in such a way to prevent existing MUDs from operating, then ofcourse it changes the situation. I was not aware of it (I have not found any such references), for which I'm sorry. It would naturally also makes the situation much more interesting to see one of these cases actually go to court, if only to end this ambiguity on the forums and the silly namecalling that usually follows.

Nonetheless, thanks for a nice debate which has remained surprisingly civil