Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

10-22-2003, 07:47 PM

Fharron, the whole thing was more a mockery of a zealous outcry (tinged with sarcasm), or at least it ended that way. I swear I had good intentions at first! It was more to show how silly one can get if they start interpreting things in their own defintions than by standard (Jazuela's reply to my first post). I will clarify what I was saying, though, because I have nothing better to do while I wait for my friend to come over and fix his computer.

Actually, that idea came from the your statement "Output is a form of distribution" that Jazuela was using to base her opinions on. I seriously doubt that it was intended or implied that distribution would cover network output, and i'm quite sure that it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.

Though pretending it did go through as that was the intention than it would surely apply to all forms of distribution or giving away. (Distribution meaning to , which is synonymous with handing out, giving out, etc.)

If distributing (giving away) any part of dikumud included network output as a recognizable form then surely:

Would mean that one must include the license in with the giving away of that part of dikumud (the output), no? But truly, I doubt it would come to that, as surely as I doubt that output would be construed as distribution as stated in the license.

Definitely not, I was over-exaggerating as I slipped towards sarcasm. Though, by that definition of distribution and the letter of the license, then the license would need to be included somewhere during the session. Note that this would probably be negated if the whole text of the mud was all original and no part of Dikumud were distributed (Though we could then argue derivative status), it's not a pretty argument and not a serious one at that, so don't take it as such =)

But besides hypothetical blathering over something that hopefully wouldn't happen, let's talk instead about the part of the license that does apply. The one about *PROFIT*. I happen to agree with Tyche's statement that the license would be taken by the court as "non-commercial" use only, which doesn't negate the chance of the mud itself bringing in money as long as the mud/company retained no profit.

Ah, there's my friend now. Good day.

10-22-2003, 07:47 PM	#57
kaylus1 Posts: n/a	Fharron, the whole thing was more a mockery of a zealous outcry (tinged with sarcasm), or at least it ended that way. I swear I had good intentions at first! It was more to show how silly one can get if they start interpreting things in their own defintions than by standard (Jazuela's reply to my first post). I will clarify what I was saying, though, because I have nothing better to do while I wait for my friend to come over and fix his computer. Actually, that idea came from the your statement "Output is a form of distribution" that Jazuela was using to base her opinions on. I seriously doubt that it was intended or implied that distribution would cover network output, and i'm quite sure that it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. Though pretending it did go through as that was the intention than it would surely apply to all forms of distribution or giving away. (Distribution meaning to , which is synonymous with handing out, giving out, etc.) If distributing (giving away) any part of dikumud included network output as a recognizable form then surely: Would mean that one must include the license in with the giving away of that part of dikumud (the output), no? But truly, I doubt it would come to that, as surely as I doubt that output would be construed as distribution as stated in the license. Definitely not, I was over-exaggerating as I slipped towards sarcasm. Though, by that definition of distribution and the letter of the license, then the license would need to be included somewhere during the session. Note that this would probably be negated if the whole text of the mud was all original and no part of Dikumud were distributed (Though we could then argue derivative status), it's not a pretty argument and not a serious one at that, so don't take it as such =) But besides hypothetical blathering over something that hopefully wouldn't happen, let's talk instead about the part of the license that does apply. The one about PROFIT. I happen to agree with Tyche's statement that the license would be taken by the court as "non-commercial" use only, which doesn't negate the chance of the mud itself bringing in money as long as the mud/company retained no profit. Ah, there's my friend now. Good day.