Well mailing them i didn't even get a reply, so I guess they give a **** about their own licence or any issues regarding it. Mailed seifert.

KaVir:
Why would I disagree with that statement? It's true. Before you jump on me, it does not necessarily imply what you want it to about the Diku license.

The specific example you pull out makes reference to the officious bystander test. Please demonstrate why an officious bystander would interpret the license as restrictively as you do.

From the top paragraph of your own link:
(Canadian law)
When Terms Are Implied:

"... There has to be strong evidence to support the conclusion that the implication of a term is permissible in the circumstances. It would seem that there are three main instances when this may be done: (i) when it is reasonably necessary, having regard to the surrounding circumstances; and in particular the previous course of dealing between the parties, if any; (ii) when there is an operative trade or business usage or custom that may be said to govern the relationship of the parties; and (iii) when some statute of its own motion implies a term into the kind of contract that is in question." (Fridman, Law of Contract in Canada, 3rd ed., p. 475, as quoted by Chipman, J.A. in Spiropoulos v. Chagnon (1998), 161 N.S.R.(2d) 202, para. 7.)

So, where's your required "strong evidence" of one of those three things? Show me some previous dealings between the parties, or some customs in this type of dealing (from the time the deal was made), or statutory law or precedent.

That certainly sounds like something you should look into if you want to substantiate your claims about certain activities violating the license.

Stilton

This is 100% true and does not refute my point that donations without an in game reward also violate the license, assuming that your definition of "profit" as "gross income" is correct. If your definition of profit is NOT correct, then it's not relevent because as long as you don't make (or try to make) a net profit, then you're in the clear.

Also true. However, it's also not really relevent - commercial is a subset of for profit, not a superset. Panhandling is for-profit, but noncommercial. This is why donations would violate the license, if you made a profit off of them, regardless of whether or not in-game rewards were offered.

I'd like it if you read the entire paragraph before you rebutted - the license MEANS what it says. It's possible that a court would consider the Diku teams intent, and allow that intent to change the strict interpertation of the license, but we're talking about an unstated intention modifying the meaning then.

As for my legal qualifications, how about you post your law school diploma first? You bring up the intentions of the Diku creators alot, but this IS the legal forum and thier intentions are only meaningful as far as a court would be likely to consider them.
That can change alot from court to court.

The laws of the US are being discussed because a) I'm familar with them and not the laws of Denmark and b) because Aardwolf is based in the US and any suit would have to be brought under US law.

No, I most certainly am not. My claim is the same as it was in my first post in this thread, in which I stated "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."

Not if they are outside of the mud. If you accept donations via your webpage, and those donations have no affect on the game, it would not violate the license because it would never fall under the scope of the license.

It is not as simple as that, particularly when the "meaning" depends on interpretation. Even in the case of clearly written licenses, the meaning can be interpreted differently under the laws of different countries (or even different US states).

DikuMud was copyrighted with the US Copyright Office:
1. Registration Number:    TX-4-424-366  
Title:    DikuMud : program / by Sebastian Hammer, Michael Seifert, Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt, Tom Madsen, Katja Nyboe.
Note:    Printout (50 p.) only deposited.
Claimant:    [Author and claimant] Katja Nyboe, acTom Madsen, acSebastian Hammer, acHans-Henrik Staerfeldt, & acMichael Seifert , 1969-
Created:    1990

Published:    1Jun90

Registered:    20May96

Title on © Application:    DikuMud gamma; Diku mud.
Miscellaneous:    C.O. corres.

This of course means that US copyright law applies.

If you accept donations through your web site, and do not advertise for donations on your mud nor offer rewards for those donations, the donations fall outside the scope of the license.  This is what KaVir meant by his statement.

Darrik Vequir

Re: Diku license
 

Deleted to avoid restarting a 4 year old post. Apologies.

Re: Diku license
 

Well you are, apparently. Or did you obtain permission to run a Transformers mud?

P.S: Any particularly reason why you decided to dig up a flame thread from 2003 and then make four replies?