Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 05-14-2002, 06:48 AM

At the request of Iluvatar, here are my thoughts on the license (note that this is NOT legal advice, just my opinion):

Firstly, I would recommend you re-word the agreement to make it clear that it's the builder who is giving permission to the mud (ie a license) for the area to be used, rather than the mud assuming the permission of the builder. For this reason it should also be made clear that the builder should email the license to the mud with something along the lines of "You may use <insert title of work here> by agreeing to and abiding by the following terms and conditions". The mud owner should reply to the email with something like "I agree to your license". Both parties should archive their emails (and better yet, agree to them in a publically archived place, so neither party can deny making the agreement initially).

Regarding point (1a), you should also remember that most muds are not legal entities. There is no clear definition of the "mud", and so I wouldn't recommend licensing the area to the mud - it should be licensed to a person, *for* use on a mud. However that in itself is going to cause problems, as I mentioned in the discussion previously - if the mud changes name, is it still the same mud? If all the staff leave, is it still the same mud (and in this case, the person who agreed to the license will no longer be working there!)? If the mud undergoes major changes (in both theme and code), is it still the same mud? Obviously it would still legally be a derivative, regardless of how much was changed, but would it still be considered the same "mud"?

Regarding point (1b), I would change "Violations include:" to "Violations include, but are not limited to:" (I believe it has a stronger legal meaning).

Point (2), I would change to something like: As the copyright holder, the builder retains all rights granted them under copyright law, including the right to copy, distribute, license, display and make derivative works based upon the work in question.

You have a second point (2). Anyway, as I pointed out previously, this second point (2) is not legally enforcable without a signature. I can, however, see two possible ways around this. The first is to make some of the clauses conditional (for example, the license could state that the mud owner cannot distribute or use the areas in other muds UNLESS the builder allows the area to be used elsewhere). The other possibility is to make sure that the areas are themselves derivatives of the mud owner's own storyline - which would then allow the mud owner to apply license conditions of his/her own (at least, unless the theme-specific stuff was later removed, but that would at least stop the area being used elsewhere without being changed by the author). Of course this would require the mud owner to have written up an extensive storyline and world background for the builders to base their areas upon.

In point (3), I suggest that you clarify the definition of "credit". I'm sure you wouldn't want the mud owner to get away with just making some vague comment about the author in some obscure extra description in a hidden room within the area. I would suggest that the area authors get listed alongside their areas in the appropriate "area list" (but what if the mud doesn't have a publically available list? I always liked the idea of a location-based credits command which listed the author of the area you are currently in, but that would require coding - perhaps it would be sufficient to add the author to the standard in-game credits for the mud?).

Point (4) - I suggest that the author can later request that credit be put back, otherwise I can see some nasty "he said..." "no I didn't!" arguments.

Point (5) sounds fine.

Point (6) - if someone creates a "new version", then yes, their additions would be copyrighted to them, as long as they make the area different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work", or it contains a substantial amount of new material (obviously they wouldn't have any ownership over the previous work though - that part would still belong to the original author). However (as it stands) nothing in your license grants permission to create derivative works. Furthermore, do you actually WANT that right to be given? Do you really WANT someone adding a pimp, Darth Vader and papa smurf to your serious-themed area, and for other people to look at the credits and think "wow, that builder just doesn't know how to stick to a theme"? If you do, I suggest you require the derivative author to follow the same license, otherwise you might end up with a single area which follows several licenses.

Along the same lines, I suggest you also add the "right to make copies for the purpose of backups".

Point (7) - see point (6). Also take a look .

05-14-2002, 06:48 AM	#14
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	At the request of Iluvatar, here are my thoughts on the license (note that this is NOT legal advice, just my opinion): Firstly, I would recommend you re-word the agreement to make it clear that it's the builder who is giving permission to the mud (ie a license) for the area to be used, rather than the mud assuming the permission of the builder. For this reason it should also be made clear that the builder should email the license to the mud with something along the lines of "You may use <insert title of work here> by agreeing to and abiding by the following terms and conditions". The mud owner should reply to the email with something like "I agree to your license". Both parties should archive their emails (and better yet, agree to them in a publically archived place, so neither party can deny making the agreement initially). Regarding point (1a), you should also remember that most muds are not legal entities. There is no clear definition of the "mud", and so I wouldn't recommend licensing the area to the mud - it should be licensed to a person, for use on a mud. However that in itself is going to cause problems, as I mentioned in the discussion previously - if the mud changes name, is it still the same mud? If all the staff leave, is it still the same mud (and in this case, the person who agreed to the license will no longer be working there!)? If the mud undergoes major changes (in both theme and code), is it still the same mud? Obviously it would still legally be a derivative, regardless of how much was changed, but would it still be considered the same "mud"? Regarding point (1b), I would change "Violations include:" to "Violations include, but are not limited to:" (I believe it has a stronger legal meaning). Point (2), I would change to something like: As the copyright holder, the builder retains all rights granted them under copyright law, including the right to copy, distribute, license, display and make derivative works based upon the work in question. You have a second point (2). Anyway, as I pointed out previously, this second point (2) is not legally enforcable without a signature. I can, however, see two possible ways around this. The first is to make some of the clauses conditional (for example, the license could state that the mud owner cannot distribute or use the areas in other muds UNLESS the builder allows the area to be used elsewhere). The other possibility is to make sure that the areas are themselves derivatives of the mud owner's own storyline - which would then allow the mud owner to apply license conditions of his/her own (at least, unless the theme-specific stuff was later removed, but that would at least stop the area being used elsewhere without being changed by the author). Of course this would require the mud owner to have written up an extensive storyline and world background for the builders to base their areas upon. In point (3), I suggest that you clarify the definition of "credit". I'm sure you wouldn't want the mud owner to get away with just making some vague comment about the author in some obscure extra description in a hidden room within the area. I would suggest that the area authors get listed alongside their areas in the appropriate "area list" (but what if the mud doesn't have a publically available list? I always liked the idea of a location-based credits command which listed the author of the area you are currently in, but that would require coding - perhaps it would be sufficient to add the author to the standard in-game credits for the mud?). Point (4) - I suggest that the author can later request that credit be put back, otherwise I can see some nasty "he said..." "no I didn't!" arguments. Point (5) sounds fine. Point (6) - if someone creates a "new version", then yes, their additions would be copyrighted to them, as long as they make the area different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work", or it contains a substantial amount of new material (obviously they wouldn't have any ownership over the previous work though - that part would still belong to the original author). However (as it stands) nothing in your license grants permission to create derivative works. Furthermore, do you actually WANT that right to be given? Do you really WANT someone adding a pimp, Darth Vader and papa smurf to your serious-themed area, and for other people to look at the credits and think "wow, that builder just doesn't know how to stick to a theme"? If you do, I suggest you require the derivative author to follow the same license, otherwise you might end up with a single area which follows several licenses. Along the same lines, I suggest you also add the "right to make copies for the purpose of backups". Point (7) - see point (6). Also take a look .