[the_logos]

Originally Posted by I've never "spewed any nonsense" - I've posted the interpretation of the Diku team, backed up by legal references. As opposed to you, who have posted your own views of how you'd like to see the Diku licence exploited^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinterpretted, backed up by your ignorant rantings of how ignoring the Diku licence would make the world a better place.

You spew nonsense anytime you claim the DIKU license prohibits revenue.

Originally Posted by No, but I speak in defence of their work. As opposed to people like you, who would rather see such mud developers screwed.

I don't want to see mud developers screwed. I just want them to have access to real information about their rights. Then they can make their own decision. You, on the other hand, want to force your point down their throats and won't tolerate alternative viewpoints. Unlike you, I'd be quite willing to change my point of view if an IP expert told me I was likely wrong. I've got no agenda here besides just finding out what the license actually says, unlike you. Don't you want people to be able to make choices based on real information, or is it more fun to hold forth as if you're a zealot priest and cast stones at anyone who (quite reasonably) disagrees?

Originally Posted by Why, one asks? Presumably because with less people contributing to the community, you'd have less competition to worry about. You're painfully transparent.

Man, you are so small-minded you just assume everyone else thinks like you do. Your ignorance of successful mud development is astonishing, though that's not surprising. I want more competition, not less. A rising tide raises all ships, regardless of how cliche, is true, and I've got nothing but confidence that a bigger text MUD market just means more players for us anyway, as we rock. My biggest nightmare is loudmouthed, small-minded people like you trying so hard to force your own personal viewpoint (which brooks no room for disagreement) on everyone that most serious, aspiring game developers forgo text MUDs and go work on graphical MUDs instead. This leads to even less quality text MUDs, which leads to smaller players, and, worse-case scenario, a death spiral for text MUDs.

No, what I want are more professionals. More people who -can- do this as a full time job. More people who have a serious vested interest in making great text MUDs. Hobbyists can definitely do this, of course, as witnessed by great hobbyist MUDs like Shadows of Isildur and Discworld, but it's a lot easier to remain dedicated for years and years if your livelihood depends on it. It's also a lot easier to work full-time on your MUD if that IS your full-time job.

Originally Posted by You expected me not to trust the mud community's equivilent of the slimey second-hand car salesman? Hardly a compliment, but better than nothing!

Ah, your flames are about what I expect from you, but no, what I meant (as you well-know) is that it's to be expected that you'd choose not to get an expert opinion as that might risk discovering you're wrong. It's a shame. There's nothing wrong with being wrong. Happens to all of us.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 24 2005,01:11) You spew nonsense anytime you claim the DIKU license prohibits revenue.

If you believe I'm "spewing nonsense" then why do you keep trying to convince me to give you money so that you can speak to a lawyer? Looks like you've made your mind up as well - just the sort of hypocracy I've come to expect from you.

Originally Posted by I don't want to see mud developers screwed.

Yes, apparently you do, otherwise you wouldn't encourage people to ignore the usasge conditions of mud developers who have put in countless hours work in order to provide the mudding community with free codebases.

Originally Posted by Unlike you, I'd be quite willing to change my point of view if an IP expert told me I was likely wrong.

Oh, so would I - but I'm not going to throw money at you in order to get back a "Yeah, he said I was right" response.

Originally Posted by Why, one asks? Presumably because with less people contributing to the community, you'd have less competition to worry about. You're painfully transparent. Man, you are so small-minded you just assume everyone else thinks like you do.

Hardly - I've contributed plenty to the mud community. Several versions of two different codebases, numerous snippets, etc. What have you contributed?

Originally Posted by Your ignorance of successful mud development is astonishing, though that's not surprising.

Once again, I ran a popular mud - and closed it down - long before you ever started working on your mud. I've also released a codebase that's being used by over a hundred muds today - how many are using yours? 5 IRE clones? Not all people define "successful" by the same yardstick.

[Traithe]

You know, if you're interested, KaVir, I'd be happy to print out the license and bring it to one of my law professors for an opinion. To be honest I'm quite curious about it myself at this point. Obviously it wouldn't be as well-developed an analysis as that given by a lawyer specifically paid to invest time in the project, but it's much better than anything any one of us could piece together.

Granted, I did just get hired by Matt so I'm not exactly a completely neutral third party here, but on the other hand I did recently release a good 20-30 thousand lines of code to the public that primarily relies on the strength of the DIKU license for its own licensing, so arguably I've got some amount of self-interest on both sides here.

Anyhow, just let me know. Tomorrow's the last day of class before spring break, so the second week of March is really the earliest I'll be able to speak with my prof about the issue.

[Traithe]

Or... heck, I'll just do some research on it over spring break. I've got access to the same Westlaw my profs do, and enough basic grounding in IP law to find some secondary sources to point me in the right direction.

Yes, why yes, I am a nerd.

To clarify before I invest any time in this, what exactly are the legal issues here?

From where I'm sitting it looks like they are as follows:

1. Whether the wording of the DIKU license is too ambiguous to be practically enforceable;

2. If not, whether any actual ambiguity in a license cuts against the licensor, even when their intentions regarding the ambiguity have been made explicitly clear outside the four corners of the document (i.e. the "profit" thing and the DIKU team's further clarification after the release), and;

3. If the answer to #2 is "no", whether a lack of enforcement on the part of the licensor in the face of blatant and repeated violations of their license (a la Medievia) invalidates their right to future enforcement of the copyright against infringers.

At the very least if I brought some of this research to my law professor she'd be more likely to spend the time to look it over, since all she'd really have to do at that point is tell me that I'm right or that I've gotten it completely wrong for reason X.

Thoughts? Any other issues of legal contention that I'm missing here?

[KaVir]

That's a generous offer Traithe, although several people have already done (or claimed to do) the same over the years, with lawyers as well as professors, and their responses invariably seem to favour whichever view they supported beforehand with their evidence limited to "s/he said I was right".

If you do decide to ask your professor, I would suggest the following:

1) Try to phrase your questions as neutrally as possible, and:

2) Ask for references to back up any responses, then:

3) Post both the questions (exactly as asked) and the responses (complete with links to comparible legal cases) with as little 'opinion' as possible.

Links to neutral information would be far more valuable than a second-hand opinion, particularly as you could be accused of being biased in either direction.

[Traithe]

Sure, not a problem.

Re: posting the sources for the research (probably in this case some statutes, cases and secondary sources), that may be more problematic. I can at the very least provide legal citations with all of it, so anyone with access to the proper materials can track it down and verify it with very little effort. Depending on some copyright issues I may not be able to provide copies of the actual documents, though, and I don't know if most of them would otherwise be available on non-commercial legal resource sites (i.e. Findlaw). Most online legal research is done on either Westlaw or LexisNexis, both of which charge serious chunks of change for their service. (Fortunately it's all free while you're a law student.)

So anyway, I'll see what I can do. Should prove interesting.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Yes, apparently you do, otherwise you wouldn't encourage people to ignore the usasge conditions of mud developers who have put in countless hours work in order to provide the mudding community with free codebases.

I'm not encouraging them to ignore the usage conditions. A simple command of English lets one see that the DIKU license prohibits profit, not revenue. Revenue isn't even mentioned in connection with an outright prohibition. Only profit is mentioned in connection with an outright prohibition.

Originally Posted by Unlike you, I'd be quite willing to change my point of view if an IP expert told me I was likely wrong. Oh, so would I - but I'm not going to throw money at you in order to get back a "Yeah, he said I was right" response.

Ahh, great! Then I'm sure you'll have no problem agreeing to change your mind if I pay for one myself, right? (Waits for you to accuse me of finding some recognized IP expert who I can pay tens of thousands of dollars to in order to buy off.) Traithe's idea is pretty good too, though as he points out, not as good as paid advice.

Originally Posted by Hardly - I've contributed plenty to the mud community.  Several versions of two different codebases, numerous snippets, etc.  What have you contributed?

I had typed out a list, but realized that it just made me sound like a braggart. I'll skip this one.

Originally Posted by Once again, I ran a popular mud - and closed it down - long before you ever started working on your mud.  I've also released a codebase that's being used by over a hundred muds today - how many are using yours?  5 IRE clones?  Not all people define "successful" by the same yardstick.

Mmm, yeah, again, I need to refrain from commenting on this as you're going to be outrageously offended if I do.

As to your offer, Chad, I know I'd also appreciate you taking the time to do that. As we talked about, you're not an IP expert at all, but you have a professor or two who is, no doubt. Since Kavir isn't willing, I may be willing to just foot the bill for a paid opinion myself, but I'm not sure. It's awfully expensive and I don't have any vested interest one way or another.

I'd roughly agree with what Kavir in his requests except in that there is no such thing as "neutral information" in terms of interpreting anything. What I'm mainly interested in is a practicing IP attorney who can tell us how a real court is likely to interpret the license. I'd say we need the following questions answered:

1. Who actually owns the DIKU license?

2. Does it matter what Hans & company say about the license after it's been issued, both if they own the license or if the university owns the license?

3. Has their lack of enforcement attempts affected their control over the IP?

4. Does the reported (I've not tested, but I recall reading someone else did) impossibility of fulfilling at least one of the license conditions (emailing them at the addresses in the license in order to alert them that you're running a DIKU) affect their claim to control over the IP?

5. Does the clause about not charging money for distributing any part of DIKUmud apply here? [My note: Hrm, I'm not sure what kind of lawyer we need to answer this question. It's not an IP expert unfortunately though. Perhaps Chad can answer this: What kind of lawyer would one consult to get a reasonably valid opinion on what would constitute distribution of a codebase? Is sending text down the telnet pipe to the user client distribution? Or is it just sending source code to people? Are there even any precedents here? Is this an IP field question? A communications law issue? Something else?

6. What's the definition of profit likely to be used?

7. If profit is defined as revenue, is there any basis for MUDs to collect revenue to pay for server costs or personnel costs or whatnot?


Hrm. This seems to get more complicated than I thought. If you can get a professor to really investigate all of these on our behalf, power to you, Chad. Figuring out who really owns the DIKU license is going to be a particular pain in the ass I think, unfortunately.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 24 2005,11:25) I'm not encouraging them to ignore the usage conditions.

You're encouraging them to use your interpretation of the conditions.

Originally Posted by A simple command of English lets one see that the DIKU license prohibits profit, not revenue.

A simple command of English lets one see that the licence actually states "You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way", and a simple usage of a dictionary shows that one "possible way" of defining profit is "a valuable return : GAIN".

Originally Posted by Hardly - I've contributed plenty to the mud community. Several versions of two different codebases, numerous snippets, etc. What have you contributed? I had typed out a list, but realized that it just made me sound like a braggart. I'll skip this one.

So "nothing", then. Unless you count hiring someone to write a codebase for you, then licensing it to other people for 5-digit figures plus royalties.

Originally Posted by Once again, I ran a popular mud - and closed it down - long before you ever started working on your mud. I've also released a codebase that's being used by over a hundred muds today - how many are using yours? 5 IRE clones? Not all people define "successful" by the same yardstick. Mmm, yeah, again, I need to refrain from commenting on this as you're going to be outrageously offended if I do.

So I did a quick search - my mistake! Apparently there are only four IRE clones. Hopefully Traithe will be able to do something a bit more original.

Originally Posted by Since Kavir isn't willing, I may be willing to just foot the bill for a paid opinion myself, but I'm not sure. It's awfully expensive and I don't have any vested interest one way or another.

Of course you have a vested interest - otherwise you wouldn't bother.

Originally Posted by I'd say we need the following questions answered: 1. Who actually owns the DIKU license?

Once again, ownership of the licence is entirely irrelevent - the licence is simply a means to grant permission to use copyrighted work. What you seem to be trying to ask is who owns the copyright, and as I've already pointed out to you, it's the Diku team. The US Copyright number is TX 4-424-366.

Originally Posted by 2. Does it matter what Hans & company say about the license after it's been issued, both if they own the license or if the university owns the license?

You mean if the wording is unclear, and the original copyright holder later clarifies the actual intent, what is the likely outcome should someone attempt to use their own interpretation instead.

Originally Posted by 3. Has their lack of enforcement attempts affected their control over the IP?

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

"5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"

False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away."

Originally Posted by 4. Does the reported (I've not tested, but I recall reading someone else did) impossibility of fulfilling at least one of the license conditions (emailing them at the addresses in the license in order to alert them that you're running a DIKU) affect their claim to control over the IP?

You mean "If the licence says I have to send an email, and that email bounces, does that mean I don't have to follow the licence any more?"? Come on, are you honestly telling me you believe that?

Your licence requires that the mud owner pay you a large amount of cash. Do you think that, if they send you the cash and for some reason your account refuses the payment, they are free to ignore your licence from that point on?

Originally Posted by 6. What's the definition of profit likely to be used? 7. If profit is defined as revenue, is there any basis for MUDs to collect revenue to pay for server costs or personnel costs or whatnot?

I believe these two are the crux of the situation.

[TheTrollCop]

Originally Posted by So I did a quick search - my mistake!  Apparently there are only four IRE clones.  Hopefully Traithe will be able to do something a bit more original.

Come now KaVir, give credit where credit is due. Lusternia although of the same engine and mediocrely different features, has quite the storyline. Estarra has created  an imaginative and immersive world, it is just too bad the price of playing in it is a bit high. My hat definately tips in her direction though, and I expect equally great things from Traithe after examining Shadows of Isildur.

Although I must admit, I share your disdain for Mihaly here. For a professional developer within the MUD community he sure has a way of acting like a pugnacious teen, especially when his statements are challenged. C'est la vie, though.

If you do decide to go through with your research Traithe, I'd be interested in hearing the results. You seem like the unbiased type that could put his boss's bias aside while researching.  Although I have a feeling we may find that KaVir is more in the right on this issue than IRE is.

I recall reading an interview done on some of the original Diku team on Orion's own site, perhaps someone could just get in contact with them and try to settle this little dispute once and for all.  Although I must wonder if even a definate answer from one of the Diku team will settle the qualms of either side.

[Hephos]

Imo, why don't the diku team just remove the license and make everyone use it as they wish... thats a nice thing for the mud community. To settle the stupid arguments would just be great enough for me I don't see them earning money off the license anyways, or in fact earning or benifiting from having it at all. How many muds really use their valhalla thing, or will be in the future?

It would also bring fourth some very nice aspects imo. Such as making (some) people able to live off their games which would make games overall more well developed as more fulltime jobs in the community would be available. It would widen the text based community... More commerciallity = more people will get into the community, more possible advertisment to attract non text-based people, more financial means overall, more competition (=better games).

It could perhaps be a really great upswing for a slowly decaying text-based community... and imo it would be a great contribution from their side. Perhaps it would even be worth paying for it... like a community effort . (Such as previous discussions of having some united advertisment campaign just to attract more outsiders into text-based games...)

Well personally i don't give a rats eye about the license. We're developing our new commercial game entierly from scratch in java. But i see a removal of the license as a good thing for the community as a whole. Perhaps i'm wrong... feel free to argue what benifits the community actually get from the license... except from "free" (underdeveloped) games...

(The license being forced onto the software from a university side is just alien to me... i'd really want some evidence of that before il believe it).

[Angie]

Originally Posted by I recall reading an interview done on some of the original Diku team on Orion's own site, perhaps someone could just get in contact with them and try to settle this little dispute once and for all.  Although I must wonder if even a definate answer from one of the Diku team will settle the qualms of either side.

It won't. The argumentation goes like this: "The Diku team has botched up their licence and they have no say in the matter any more."

[Traithe]

Well, I can already tell you that KaVir's correct about the ownership issue: the license itself doesn't explicitly transfer ownership to anyone (the mention of the University doesn't serve this purpose), and the copyright record number he provided gives their names as the owner of the copyright interest.

Regarding unenforceability due to the impossibility of fulfilling a clause in the license, I couldn't say generally without some research on the matter. However, in this case I think it's pretty easy to sidestep the issue completely; the plain language of the document says that "you must send us a message"; it doesn't state anything about the need for the message to actually be received or acknowledged in any way in order for the license to have been fulfilled.

At any rate, I just emailed the Lexis rep at our school to find out if it would be possible for me to include the source materials as PDF files that I dig up with my research, so people without access to legal databases can still read for themselves to judge the accuracy of my findings. I'll probably get started on this thing in a couple days or so.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by TheTrollCap wrote: Come now KaVir, give credit where credit is due. Lusternia although of the same engine and mediocrely different features, has quite the storyline. Estarra has created an imaginative and immersive world,

Quite possibly, but if someone took a Diku mud, created new areas, added a few new classes and skills, than claimed to be something amazingly new and original, they'd be laughed off the forums (I've seen it happen).

Originally Posted by I recall reading an interview done on some of the original Diku team on Orion's own site, perhaps someone could just get in contact with them and try to settle this little dispute once and for all. Although I must wonder if even a definate answer from one of the Diku team will settle the qualms of either side.

Oh I've spoken to the Diku team at some length (or at least, the two of them that are still active) - I wouldn't have tried to defend their interpretation if I didn't know what that interpretation was.

Originally Posted by Hephos wrote: It would also bring fourth some very nice aspects imo. Such as making (some) people able to live off their games which would make games overall more well developed as more fulltime jobs in the community would be available.

People can do that as it is - it's just that they have to have the skill and dedication (or the money and dedication) to actually create a mud from scratch. Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use the Diku code.

[Hephos]

Originally Posted by People can do that as it is - it's just that they have to have the skill and dedication (or the money and dedication) to actually create a mud from scratch. Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use the Diku code.

Hmm you are missing the point. Of course people can do that as it is. Without the license it would be easier, and more people could do it. Not just skilled people, or rich people, but your kid next door that has a vision or the rest of the 95% of the mud developers that could never pull something like that as it is.

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Feb. 24 005,11:20) People can do that as it is - it's just that they have to have the skill and dedication (or the money and dedication) to actually create a mud from scratch. Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to use the Diku code.

Yeah, there are dozens of publicly available (and free) mud servers that have licenses amenable to commercial exploitation. There are even commercial muds running on them. The Eternal City for example runs on the ColdC server.

And really there are only ~70 Dikumuds running today. Most Dikurivatives are running under several additional licenses. For example, there are ~300 CircleMud derivatives running under a license that is quite explicit IRT commercial use and donations.

I'd wager very few people download Diku, as it no longer even compiles on modern Unix systems.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by Oh I've spoken to the Diku team at some length (or at least, the two of them that are still active) - I wouldn't have tried to defend their interpretation if I didn't know what that interpretation was.

Yeah. A number of people in this thread are pretending that the DIKU team ran into a room like the legendary runner of Marathon, handed the license over, and collapsed dead. They've spoken at length on this topic (including their disgust at exploitation of the kind promoted on this thread) and their intent was made clear. Disputing their intent is rather moot in light of that.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Tyche @ Feb. 24 2005,17:43) Yeah, there are dozens of publicly available (and free) mud servers that have licenses amenable to commercial exploitation.  There are even commercial muds running on them.   The Eternal City for example runs on the ColdC server.

Actually that's also a very good point.

Originally Posted by And really there are only ~70 Dikumuds running today.

By "Diku" I was also refering to its derivatives, which are also bound by the same licence.

Originally Posted by Most Dikurivatives are running under several additional licenses.

True, although AFAIK only Circle elaborates on commercial use.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by A simple command of English lets one see that the licence actually states "You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way", and a simple usage of a dictionary shows that one "possible way" of defining profit is "a valuable return : GAIN".

Exactly, gain. If your expenses are greater than or equal to your revenue, you have gained nothing. I'm willing to bet you they don't consult the dictionary on a term that's so frequently used in contract law. Traithe had said something about there possibly being a fixed legal definition of profit, but he didn't know for sure.

Originally Posted by So "nothing", then.  Unless you count hiring someone to write a codebase for you, then licensing it to other people for 5-digit figures plus royalties.

I could start with creating jobs (you know, something of tangible benefit to the world), but I think I won't even bother elaborating.

Originally Posted by So I did a quick search - my mistake!  Apparently there are only four IRE clones.  Hopefully Traithe will be able to do something a bit more original.

Heh, says the guy who was earlier bragging about 100 people running a clone of Godwars.

Originally Posted by Of course you have a vested interest - otherwise you wouldn't bother.

Only if you consider "the truth" a vested interest. If that's the case, then yes, I do have one. I don't really care which way the research comes up, as I've got no agenda one way or another. You're the one with the stated agenda. I'd just like to feel like the mud world has gotten a valid opinion on the issue.

Originally Posted by http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html "5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!" False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away."

Well, I'm glad you were able to dig up a quote on a website, but this is why I'd like an expert opinion to give a detailed answer specifically tailored to this issue. I'd suggest that the law is a lot more complicated in practice than what may be gleaned from that kind of site.

Originally Posted by You mean "If the licence says I have to send an email, and that email bounces, does that mean I don't have to follow the licence any more?"?  Come on, are you honestly telling me you believe that? Your licence requires that the mud owner pay you a large amount of cash.  Do you think that, if they send you the cash and for some reason your account refuses the payment, they are free to ignore your licence from that point on?

No, I don't -believe- anything regarding this. It's a question.  I've not got my mind made up by any means. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm definitely not a lawyer who specializes in contract law. Again, this is why an expert opinion would be helpful. A former partner at our law firm advised us that the DIKU license doesn't prohibit revenue, just profit, but it was just an offhand reading not a detailed formal opinion.

Given that you've never read our license document, I think it's funny that you'd event comment on it. Of course what you write wouldn't work, because the license is written to prevent that kind of possibility.

Originally Posted by 6. What's the definition of profit likely to be used? 7. If profit is defined as revenue, is there any basis for MUDs to collect revenue to pay for server costs or personnel costs or whatnot? I believe these two are the crux of the situation.

What's interesting about this is that it's pretty hard to imagine any sort of middle-ground on a layman's reading of the license, at least. If revenue is prohibited then anyone taking donations is possibly a license violator, though I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of what making revenue "on any part of DIKUmud" means. This, of course, would be horrible for hobbyist text MUDs generally, as it means the big ones would have to find another way to cover their server costs. And of course, if one kind of cost is allowed, I can't imagine a justification for not allowing another kind of cost: personnel costs. And then we're back to profit rather than revenue, in which case the only way to prove someone like Medievia is violating the revenue/profit clauses in the DIKU license is to look at their financial statements.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Hephos @ Feb. 24 2005,09:51) Imo, why don't the diku team just remove the license and make everyone use it as they wish... thats a nice thing for the mud community. To settle the stupid arguments would just be great enough for me I don't see them earning money off the license anyways, or in fact earning or benifiting from having it at all. How many muds really use their valhalla thing, or will be in the future? It would also bring fourth some very nice aspects imo. Such as making (some) people able to live off their games which would make games overall more well developed as more fulltime jobs in the community would be available. It would widen the text based community... More commerciallity = more people will get into the community, more possible advertisment to attract non text-based people, more financial means overall, more competition (=better games).

I couldn't agree more Hephos. I'm perpetually unsure what the objection is to people making money in a way that doesn't take anything away from you. Is it ego? I honestly have no idea. But what you write is dead on. Allowing more people to focus their energies on text by freeing them from worrying about day jobs would be a huge boon to the text community. And as you say, it's not like valhalla is making anyone any money. Releasing a codebase even with commercial restrictions is a cool thing to do, but it'd be a lot more helpful to the community if they were released without that kind of prohibition. What I would have done in their shoes is release it without commercial prohibition and just say that you owe a flat royalty percentage on any revenues earned in connection with the codebase (obviously with much more legalese involved). That way they still benefit and people are free to commercialize. (Although given that Medievia is still operating without any hassle from DIKU, it's pretty clear people can commercialize already, whether that violates the license or not.)

But, I don't actually know if it's possible for the license to be released. I dunno how that works. Is that a retroactive change of the contract terms? I suspect that could be gotten around if the DIKU team just released a signed statement stating that they will never take action against DIKU offenders, but I don't know. Definitely a question for the IP lawyers, not me.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Oh I've spoken to the Diku team at some length (or at least, the two of them that are still active) - I wouldn't have tried to defend their interpretation if I didn't know what that interpretation was.

That's an interesting point aside from the license. If you did grant that one party to the license contract could validly interpret it while the other couldn't, then are 2 members of the team enough? How is copyright ownership split up in terms of control? What kind of legal arrangement do they have among themselves in terms of control? What if another member disagreed? How does control get divvied up in the probable absence of a passable legal agreement between them?

Originally Posted by True, although AFAIK only Circle elaborates on commercial use.

Yeah, both Merc and ROM, for instance, just say you have to follow the DIKU license and make no mention of revenue or profit or whatnot beyond that.

--matt

[Stilton]

Sarapis

Originally Posted by That's an interesting point aside from the license. If you did grant that one party to the license contract could validly interpret it while the other couldn't, then are 2 members of the team enough? How is copyright ownership split up in terms of control? What kind of legal arrangement do they have among themselves in terms of control? What if another member disagreed? How does control get divvied up in the probable absence of a passable legal agreement between them?

Try
http://copylaw.com/new_articles/collab.html

or any of many similar links. The music community, in particular, seems to be aware of this issue.

To find more, one of the key search terms you're looking for is "joint work" copyright. Add things like license to narrow it down to the specific types of rights you're interested in.

Stilton

[the_logos]

5-->

Originally Posted by (Stilton @ Feb. 24 2005,17[img http://www.topmudsites.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/img]5)]Sarapis Originally Posted by That's an interesting point aside from the license. If you did grant that one party to the license contract could validly interpret it while the other couldn't, then are 2 members of the team enough? How is copyright ownership split up in terms of control? What kind of legal arrangement do they have among themselves in terms of control? What if another member disagreed? How does control get divvied up in the probable absence of a passable legal agreement between them?

I was curious enough to call our primary business lawyer about this. She is not an IP specialist per se in that she deals with all sorts of entrepreneurial business issues, but has dealt with IP issues, particularly software copyrights and licenses, extensively.

So what she said is this (obviously, this is all under American law here):

1. Assuming the DIKU guys don't have a formal written agreement between them governing issues regarding ownership of the copyright, then the five of them each have a 20% share in the copyright.

2. In the absence of said agreement prohibiting this, any of those owners could issue a new DIKU license under any terms they wanted. They would have to account to the other owners if they made any money off the sale or license of the DIKU code or copyright though.

So basically, unless the DIKU guys have a formal agreement governing the ownership of the copyright, each of them can make his own decisions on licensing issues. It'd be interesting (just on a hypothetical level), to see them issue different licenses, though that doesn't really help the ROM and Merc users, whose licenses point to the current DIKU license, if rather vaguely (ie they don't specify which DIKU license, though there's only one in existence currently that I know of).

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 24 2005,20:56) Originally Posted by So "nothing", then.  Unless you count hiring someone to write a codebase for you, then licensing it to other people for 5-digit figures plus royalties. I could start with creating jobs (you know, something of tangible benefit to the world), but I think I won't even bother elaborating.

The question was what you have contributed to the mud community. Hiring someone to give up their current mud and work on a different one really makes little difference to anyone else.

Originally Posted by So I did a quick search - my mistake! Apparently there are only four IRE clones. Hopefully Traithe will be able to do something a bit more original. Heh, says the guy who was earlier bragging about 100 people running a clone of Godwars.

Not bragging - simply pointing out that you claim "Your ignorance of successful mud development is astonishing, though that's not surprising" is unsupported by the facts.

Originally Posted by What's interesting about this is that it's pretty hard to imagine any sort of middle-ground on a layman's reading of the license, at least. If revenue is prohibited then anyone taking donations is possibly a license violator, though I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of what making revenue "on any part of DIKUmud" means.

Well obviously they couldn't stop you accepting donations through your website - the licence applies to DikuMUD, while the website (unless has Diku code or areas printed on it) falls outside the scope of the licence. This is also the view stated by the Diku team.

[Traithe]

Well, there's good news and there's bad news.

The good news is that I heard back from the Lexis rep a little earlier, and I'll be able to distribute all the cases, statutes, secondary source materials, etc. that I dig up along with my research findings. I'll probably just put the whole thing up on the SoI website and turn the legal case cites into links to the proper PDF files so you can read for yourself.

The bad news (sort of) is that I just found out my partner and I made it into the next round of the school's crimlaw moot court competition - which means my free time over spring break has just taken a considerable hit, due to the practice obligations. Plus, depending on how far we make it the competition lasts for most of March - so I may be pushing back the timetable on this thing by about a month or so.

Hopefully I'll still be able to scrape enough free time together before then to get this thing rolling, but we'll see how it goes.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by The question was what you have contributed to the mud community. Hiring someone to give up their current mud and work on a different one really makes little difference to anyone else.

In the interests of ending this pointless squabbling, I'll just leave it at this: A job and a hobby are not the same thing, nor do they contribute the same thing to a community. One feeds people, sends people's kids to college, pays mortgages, and so on. If you want to disagree with that, go ahead. It's not even worth a discussion. There's a reason rl communities care about job creation and not hobby creation, frankly.

Originally Posted by Well obviously they couldn't stop you accepting donations through your website - the licence applies to DikuMUD, while the website (unless has Diku code or areas printed on it) falls outside the scope of the licence. This is also the view stated by the Diku team.

Brings up an interesting question then: What if you charge just for stuff that's not part of DIKU. IE you don't charge for access or any abilities that's part of DIKU, but instead you charge for virtual items, for instance, which you create. Your creations are not part of DIKU, though they are derived from DIKU. I'm not a lawyer, obviously, and I suspect that issue's never really been dealt with before in courts in any other medium. Seems like it'd still be staying in bounds of the license though.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Feb. 26 2005,06:04) Originally Posted by The question was what you have contributed to the mud community.  Hiring someone to give up their current mud and work on a different one really makes little difference to anyone else. In the interests of ending this pointless squabbling

No squabbling, just a simple question of what you've contributed to the mud community. No need to be ashamed if the answer is "nothing" - a lot of people have contributed nothing. Of course such people don't usually throw stones in their glass houses.

Originally Posted by Brings up an interesting question then: What if you charge just for stuff that's not part of DIKU. IE you don't charge for access or any abilities that's part of DIKU, but instead you charge for virtual items, for instance, which you create.

If your mud is a Diku derivative, then it is bound by the Diku licence. If you moved your (completely original) creations to a different medium then you could charge for them; an entire scratch-written area written could be sold without any problems because it's an original work and (when not integrated with Diku) falls outside the scope of the Diku licence. But when integrated with Diku, the game and areas become a combined work, and therefore have to follow the Diku licence conditions

Take the Intel C++ Compiler as one of many examples - they allow you to use it for non-commercial purposes. You can use your code on a different compiler, or sell the source code, but you couldn't sell the executable.

This is also the same reason why the LGPL was created - to quote from their licence "The reason we have a separate public license for some libraries is that they blur the distinction we usually make between modifying or adding to a program and simply using it. Linking a program with a library, without changing the library, is in some sense simply using the library, and is analogous to running a utility program or application program. However, in a textual and legal sense, the linked executable is a combined work, a derivative of the original library, and the ordinary General Public License treats it as such."