Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

nhl · 04-30-2006, 09:27 AM

The EULA's or Terms of Service that accompany many software, is equally not a contract, but a license to use a piece of software for a specified purpose. Yet, several provisions of EULA's have been overturned (especially dealing with limit of warranty) as they have been found unenforcable or against the local laws. I fail to see how this is materially different from the DIKU license. Hence Medievia could claim that they are complying with the license for some parts, and not complying with others which they feel are unfair, overly restrictive or which contradict local laws. It is then up for a court to decide if that is the case.

I will agree with you though, that the credits part is problematic.

Edit:

I just went back and reread the DIKU license, and now I wonder *why* it could not possibly be seen as a contract. I have raid the ilaw.com.au article that states:
The first of the preconditions could arguably be filled with providing visible credit (at the MUD admins expense) to the DIKU team. There is no requirement that the "something of value" has to be money, nor that it has to be in proportion to the goods received (selling a car for $1 is legal under contract law). The DIKU license differs significantly from what GPL or most open source licenses require (and that's what the ilaw.com.au article deals with) in requiring such favors from the other party.

The second precondition is fulfilled by the licensee sending "a message, by snail-mail or email". Or so I would interpret it, but the differences between contracts and licenses isn't really my strong side.

04-30-2006, 09:27 AM	#54
nhl Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 37	The EULA's or Terms of Service that accompany many software, is equally not a contract, but a license to use a piece of software for a specified purpose. Yet, several provisions of EULA's have been overturned (especially dealing with limit of warranty) as they have been found unenforcable or against the local laws. I fail to see how this is materially different from the DIKU license. Hence Medievia could claim that they are complying with the license for some parts, and not complying with others which they feel are unfair, overly restrictive or which contradict local laws. It is then up for a court to decide if that is the case. I will agree with you though, that the credits part is problematic. Edit: I just went back and reread the DIKU license, and now I wonder why it could not possibly be seen as a contract. I have raid the ilaw.com.au article that states: The first of the preconditions could arguably be filled with providing visible credit (at the MUD admins expense) to the DIKU team. There is no requirement that the "something of value" has to be money, nor that it has to be in proportion to the goods received (selling a car for $1 is legal under contract law). The DIKU license differs significantly from what GPL or most open source licenses require (and that's what the ilaw.com.au article deals with) in requiring such favors from the other party. The second precondition is fulfilled by the licensee sending "a message, by snail-mail or email". Or so I would interpret it, but the differences between contracts and licenses isn't really my strong side.