|
Interesting. I didn't actually know that. I'm not sure it changes anything though, as regardless, one party in a lawsuit's interpretation of a license isn't going to hold more weight than another's, all other things being equal.
That's my opinion at least, and I think there's significant justification for it. In the end though, this is why the rule of law matters: It exists to resolve these disputes, and it's the only valid route for resolution of a legal dispute.
Oh, sure, they're definitely bound by the same license, but my point is that the license, which I've quoted below for people who aren't familiar with it, doesn't speak to works created with the DikuMUD software. It only speaks about DikuMUD itself and what you may charge for with it.
Right, you can't sell your Diku derivative to someone else, but that doesn't stop you from selling items, for instance. That's not selling DikuMUD. That's not selling anything actually. It's just licensing in virtually all cases except for Second Life (and even there, despite Linden Labs claims, that's pretty debatable).
Adding to DikuMUD doesn't make your mud part of DikuMUD, which is what most of the license talks about.
Yeah, I agree that the copyright bit is fairly clear, providing that the entire license wouldn't simply be thrown out of court, which isn't out of the realm of possibility by any means. It's very badly written regardless of what one believes its intent is.
(Incidentally, I want to make clear that I have zero problem with anything that Aardwolf does that I'm aware of.)
--matt
|