Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

the_logos · 10-15-2003, 02:55 PM

The analogy was used to illustrate how silly it is to claim that we have no way of having any clue about whether something is legal or not (nevermind that you have loudly and repeatedly made legal assertions about the license). You are correct about civil vs. criminal law.

I don't care about the spirit of the license as it's not relevant, particularly in a discussion of contract and IP law.

There seems no doubt that Medievia is violating the license. They may or may not be violating the profit part of the license (we have no way of knowing whether they are showing a profit or not) but they certainly do seem to be violating the bits involving proper credit.

As for Rapture, you go ahead and try to find a way to use it without paying royalties. If the contract we use gives you a way to operate without paying royalties then you're not doing anything wrong. The contract IS the agreement, just as the DIKU license is the whole of the contract between DIKU licensor and licensee.

A commercial enterprise is generally defined as an enterprise with profit as the goal. Profit as the goal does not speak to whether or not profit is actually being made and the license only prohibits the licensee from making an actual profit.

I'm talking about what the IRS treats as profit, which is distinct from gross revenue (the US doesn't really use the term gross profit). As someone (Stilton I think) pointed out earlier, the IRS is, in the US (which is the only country I'm talking about here), the defacto, court-accepted definer of profit.

But this is the legal forum. I'm curious where in contract or IP law you find precedent for significantly altering a license based on the claimed intentions of the licensor.

But why are you the one making this argument? Even the licensors themselves apparently don't feel they've suffered damages significant enough to sue, even when offered money to assist in a lawsuit. You can make all the hypotheticals you want but we can all read the license, and the license is clear. Further, it's also clear that the licensors don't believe they've suffered significant damages, if any damages at all.

--matt

10-15-2003, 02:55 PM	#29
the_logos Legend Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Mill Valley, California Posts: 2,305	The analogy was used to illustrate how silly it is to claim that we have no way of having any clue about whether something is legal or not (nevermind that you have loudly and repeatedly made legal assertions about the license). You are correct about civil vs. criminal law. I don't care about the spirit of the license as it's not relevant, particularly in a discussion of contract and IP law. There seems no doubt that Medievia is violating the license. They may or may not be violating the profit part of the license (we have no way of knowing whether they are showing a profit or not) but they certainly do seem to be violating the bits involving proper credit. As for Rapture, you go ahead and try to find a way to use it without paying royalties. If the contract we use gives you a way to operate without paying royalties then you're not doing anything wrong. The contract IS the agreement, just as the DIKU license is the whole of the contract between DIKU licensor and licensee. A commercial enterprise is generally defined as an enterprise with profit as the goal. Profit as the goal does not speak to whether or not profit is actually being made and the license only prohibits the licensee from making an actual profit. I'm talking about what the IRS treats as profit, which is distinct from gross revenue (the US doesn't really use the term gross profit). As someone (Stilton I think) pointed out earlier, the IRS is, in the US (which is the only country I'm talking about here), the defacto, court-accepted definer of profit. But this is the legal forum. I'm curious where in contract or IP law you find precedent for significantly altering a license based on the claimed intentions of the licensor. But why are you the one making this argument? Even the licensors themselves apparently don't feel they've suffered damages significant enough to sue, even when offered money to assist in a lawsuit. You can make all the hypotheticals you want but we can all read the license, and the license is clear. Further, it's also clear that the licensors don't believe they've suffered significant damages, if any damages at all. --matt