[dentin]

If this is added the new copyright disclaimer for NiMUD, it's definitely a step in the right direction. Something that seems to be particularly unclear to you (Locke) is the legal definition of 'derived work'; it's not necessarily what you think it should be.

The most direct way to demonstrate this is with the following: if you start with Diku code, then piece by piece modify it to replace 100% of the original, it is still a derived work of the original Diku code. It is considered a derived work from a legal standpoint, with legal consequences, that will hold up in a court of law, for which you can be prosecuted, even though not a line of the original Diku remains.

If you don't believe this, look up 'clean room implementation' and the scandals associated with it over the past three decades. Computer companies have often gone to extreme measures (like having strongly isolated observation, spec, and programming teams) to avoid being sued under the derived work clauses.

You may not like it, and you may even think this is a 'bad law', however what you think is not relevant in a court of law, and does not change the fact that 7% is more than sufficient to force NiMUD into the 'derived work' category.