Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Orion Elder · 05-22-2002, 05:15 AM

I could be wrong but, unlike the situation with Diku/GPL where the wording was clear in the phrasing, couldn't this be an attempt by the author not to take the copyright (which can't be taken anyway, in this fashion), but to simply claim ownership of the fixed form of the work. To clarify, an attempt to take ownership of the physical copy, such as a painter's painting, as opposed to the rights to the physical copy, such as a painter's copyright of said painting?

Since it doesn't make a distinction as to which 'property' it is attempting to assume ownership of (the fixed form, or the rights to said fixed form), I would think the intent of the licensor would be a very necessary step in the process of making that distinction...

Some see at as an attempt to steal the copyright, while others may see it as an attempt to retain ownership of the work created on/for their MUD.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

05-22-2002, 05:15 AM	#4
Orion Elder Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 346	I could be wrong but, unlike the situation with Diku/GPL where the wording was clear in the phrasing, couldn't this be an attempt by the author not to take the copyright (which can't be taken anyway, in this fashion), but to simply claim ownership of the fixed form of the work. To clarify, an attempt to take ownership of the physical copy, such as a painter's painting, as opposed to the rights to the physical copy, such as a painter's copyright of said painting? Since it doesn't make a distinction as to which 'property' it is attempting to assume ownership of (the fixed form, or the rights to said fixed form), I would think the intent of the licensor would be a very necessary step in the process of making that distinction... Some see at as an attempt to steal the copyright, while others may see it as an attempt to retain ownership of the work created on/for their MUD. Just my thoughts on the matter.