|
I was somewhat panting after reading all these posts but I have to admit I enjoyed them. This is a hot topic for builders and every builder or owner has a vested interest in it.
To somewhat cut to the chase, I whole heartedly agree with Mason in almost every area especially his analogy of the poem. The points I wanted to bring up is until there IS a documented court case that establishes precedent all the bantering is somewhat moot except to establishing a MU* community moral stance on the issue.
Yes, a builder agreeing to build for an owner gives both the right to the product. The inherent fact in that is if the builder didn't agree they wouldn't build. The builder is the author and the owner is the publisher and either has a right to display within the license authority of the codebase. I make this point because an owner may have commissioned creation of an integral portion of their world to the builder and oops, that builder gets disgruntled and demands removal of their works. A competent owner just can't risk that. The authorship should remain intact and readily displayed unless the author requests it not to be.
I do think there is a moral imperative for the owner to give the builder a copy of their works if they leave too. It may be a pain to send the zone file, it may send a unique zone out into public domain, but the owner didn't write the thing! Let the builder have it!
Copywrite laws are generally a good thing but as I mentioned at the beginning of this with the absence of a case law basis established for MU* volunteer building, all we really have is a form of common morality WE establish. I certainly wouldn't build for Ack! under that concept Dulan brought up and the posts here certainly agree it's silly.
Iluvatar
|