Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 04-28-2006, 06:53 PM

Regarding the whole "The Diku licence won't hold up in court" thing, this link provides some interesting points:

It's in regard to the GPL, but the situation is very much the same, as both the GPL and diku licence are licences and not contracts.

The following is quoted from Eben Moglen, the Free Software Foundation's attorney:

"The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor. Copyright holders of computer programs are given, by the Copyright Act, exclusive right to copy, modify and redistribute their programs. The GPL, reduced to its essence, says: 'You may copy, modify and redistribute this software, whether modified or unmodified, freely. But if you redistribute it, in modified or unmodified form, your permission extends only to distribution under the terms of this license. If you violate the terms of this license, all permission is withdrawn.'"

"Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says 'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.' The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL."

In summary: The Diku licence is the only thing giving permission to use DikuMUD. If the Diku licence were proven invalid, then you wouldn't have permission to use DikuMUD, and the mud would therefore be a copyright infingement. You can't use the usual contract law defences, because the lack of consideration means that the Diku licence is not a contract.

04-28-2006, 06:53 PM	#12
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	Regarding the whole "The Diku licence won't hold up in court" thing, this link provides some interesting points: It's in regard to the GPL, but the situation is very much the same, as both the GPL and diku licence are licences and not contracts. The following is quoted from Eben Moglen, the Free Software Foundation's attorney: "The GPL, however, is a true copyright license: a unilateral permission, in which no obligations are reciprocally required by the licensor. Copyright holders of computer programs are given, by the Copyright Act, exclusive right to copy, modify and redistribute their programs. The GPL, reduced to its essence, says: 'You may copy, modify and redistribute this software, whether modified or unmodified, freely. But if you redistribute it, in modified or unmodified form, your permission extends only to distribution under the terms of this license. If you violate the terms of this license, all permission is withdrawn.'" "Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says 'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.' The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL." In summary: The Diku licence is the only thing giving permission to use DikuMUD. If the Diku licence were proven invalid, then you wouldn't have permission to use DikuMUD, and the mud would therefore be a copyright infingement. You can't use the usual contract law defences, because the lack of consideration means that the Diku licence is not a contract.