|
Intent is a consideration upon which implied terms can be based. We're not talking about adding implied terms which are inconsistent with the contract - we're talking about those which are based upon the intention of the Diku team.
It doesn't need to. Activities outside of the mud fall outside the scope of the license. The license only provides the conditions under which you can copy, modify, distribute, display or perform Diku mud.
Yet according to Tyche, courts have previously intepretted similar clauses as "for non-commercial use only".
My interpretation is the same as that of the Diku team. And as I've already pointed out - with cites - intent is one of the considerations used by a court when interpreting the license. I'd therefore be interested to hear what legal background you have that you are able to claim with such certainty in what way the license would be interpretted in court.
|