Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

10-21-2003, 01:48 PM

Of course, they agree to the letter of the license and that is why we are discussing it. The letter of the license says no PROFIT can be made in anyway. When a license is vague in something we look at the implied parts of the license (implied terms, conditions and promises) I, personally, see no implied condition or term in there, instead I see it expressed that no *PROFIT* be made.

Which is what a few people are discussing, whether there is any right to come in after the fact of creating a license and add intents that aren't expressed in the license.

As to whether the license reflects those intents in implied ways is up to the courts, you can debate it till blue in the face. Though I wonder how the innocent bystander* test would fare.

So far, most people I have shown the license seem to assume that it meaning simply non-commercial usage, tending to back up the statement of Tyche.

Again, it's not an obscure loophole but a clearly expressed statement in the contract that states no *PROFIT*. Very specific if you ask me.

Very odd, I don't remember seeing a rule saying you can't CHARGE. Or do you mean this:

[code] You may under no circumstances charge money for
distributing any part of dikumud - this includes the usual $5 charge
for "sending the disk" or "just for the disk" etc.
[/quote]

Let's be serious, especially if you are trying to tell people about breaking intent. Distribution is just what it states: The distribution of the software itself. The term distribute is very clearly defined in regards to software licenses, so I doubt with any stretch you could make it apply.

If distribution does mean what Fharron states ("output is distribution") then I guess we better watch what licenses we use with our muds, quite a few say that the license must be included if any part is distributed. (would we send the license on a per character basis or after each line?)

Kaylus

[code]
Officious Bystander Test; A contract between the company and a supplier is comprised of express terms (ie written down) and implied terms (obvious terms implied by commonsense, and by custom and practice). To determine later whether some particular term X is implied or not, the company might imagine what reply would have been given by both parties while the contract was being drawn up to an officious bystander (ie a nosy passer-by) if he had asked them "Is X intended to be included?". If both parties would have replied in unison "Yes - the inclusion of X is obvious! X is essential from the business point of view!", then X is indeed an implied term. Note that X must be essential at the time the contract is being drawn up; it is not an implied term simply because it later seems reasonable, or on lenghthy reflection seems a reasonable extension of the agreement.
[/quote]

10-21-2003, 01:48 PM	#51
kaylus1 Posts: n/a	Of course, they agree to the letter of the license and that is why we are discussing it. The letter of the license says no PROFIT can be made in anyway. When a license is vague in something we look at the implied parts of the license (implied terms, conditions and promises) I, personally, see no implied condition or term in there, instead I see it expressed that no PROFIT be made. Which is what a few people are discussing, whether there is any right to come in after the fact of creating a license and add intents that aren't expressed in the license. As to whether the license reflects those intents in implied ways is up to the courts, you can debate it till blue in the face. Though I wonder how the innocent bystander* test would fare. So far, most people I have shown the license seem to assume that it meaning simply non-commercial usage, tending to back up the statement of Tyche. Again, it's not an obscure loophole but a clearly expressed statement in the contract that states no PROFIT. Very specific if you ask me. Very odd, I don't remember seeing a rule saying you can't CHARGE. Or do you mean this: [code] You may under no circumstances charge money for distributing any part of dikumud - this includes the usual $5 charge for "sending the disk" or "just for the disk" etc. [/quote] Let's be serious, especially if you are trying to tell people about breaking intent. Distribution is just what it states: The distribution of the software itself. The term distribute is very clearly defined in regards to software licenses, so I doubt with any stretch you could make it apply. If distribution does mean what Fharron states ("output is distribution") then I guess we better watch what licenses we use with our muds, quite a few say that the license must be included if any part is distributed. (would we send the license on a per character basis or after each line?) Kaylus [code] Officious Bystander Test; A contract between the company and a supplier is comprised of express terms (ie written down) and implied terms (obvious terms implied by commonsense, and by custom and practice). To determine later whether some particular term X is implied or not, the company might imagine what reply would have been given by both parties while the contract was being drawn up to an officious bystander (ie a nosy passer-by) if he had asked them "Is X intended to be included?". If both parties would have replied in unison "Yes - the inclusion of X is obvious! X is essential from the business point of view!", then X is indeed an implied term. Note that X must be essential at the time the contract is being drawn up; it is not an implied term simply because it later seems reasonable, or on lenghthy reflection seems a reasonable extension of the agreement. [/quote]