Not only are you assuming some universal contract law (which does not exist), but I think we may have misunderstood each other.
If a court decides that the DIKU license does indeed only apply to making profit by direct distribution or resale of the DIKU engine, it does not necessarily invalidate the rest of the license, including the provisions of setting up a DikuMud and altering the DikuMud sourcecode.
So one plausible scenario is that a court would find that the resale of the Diku Engine is against the license, whereas charging for content running on it isn't. The rest of the license wouldn't be void. Other provisions which weaken the case of upholding the license, is where the MUD operator is claimed to be violating agreements which he/she is not part of (between the DIKU team and the University) and which implies legal action.
|