|
This is quite interesting. Historically, there's definitely been more controversy over the violation of a software license than that of a content license. I think there are a couple of main reasons...
1. There's a significant demographic in this community that write software, certainly more than write fiction, and so we're naturally more sensitive to that side of the licensing issue.
2. Content in a MUD is typically just one instance of unofficial support for a popular fiction. Fan clubs, websites, and e-zines are other examples. It's rare, as far as I know, for the owner of the fiction to supress this unofficial expression. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's counter productive to do so.
The Midkemia example is puzzling in this regard, as here is a fiction that, as far as I can tell, is not widely known and could probably benefit from broader exposure. Yet, the author supresses a portion of his fan base from doing so by imposing a MUD license. Too bad for him I guess.
-Gromble
|