|
This is 100% true and does not refute my point that donations without an in game reward also violate the license, assuming that your definition of "profit" as "gross income" is correct. If your definition of profit is NOT correct, then it's not relevent because as long as you don't make (or try to make) a net profit, then you're in the clear.
Also true. However, it's also not really relevent - commercial is a subset of for profit, not a superset. Panhandling is for-profit, but noncommercial. This is why donations would violate the license, if you made a profit off of them, regardless of whether or not in-game rewards were offered.
I'd like it if you read the entire paragraph before you rebutted - the license MEANS what it says. It's possible that a court would consider the Diku teams intent, and allow that intent to change the strict interpertation of the license, but we're talking about an unstated intention modifying the meaning then.
As for my legal qualifications, how about you post your law school diploma first? You bring up the intentions of the Diku creators alot, but this IS the legal forum and thier intentions are only meaningful as far as a court would be likely to consider them.
That can change alot from court to court.
The laws of the US are being discussed because a) I'm familar with them and not the laws of Denmark and b) because Aardwolf is based in the US and any suit would have to be brought under US law.
|