[the_logos]

Ok, fair enough. I thought you meant to say that the players should be allowed to choose what rights they have and don't have individually, which is a recipe for total disaster, of course, though would make for an interesting, if short-lived, experiment.


I'm guessing that by control over their communications you mean the ability to ignore communications coming from other players, rather than the ability to force communication on someone else, no matter what? I'd agree that should be done, though surely most MUDs give players some control over that already?

For the most part I'd tend to agree with the idea that once an admin has determined what rights a player is to have, it's up to the admins to give players methods of exercising those rights. However, I have no problem with human intervention either. For instance, one of the methods we've given our players is filing an issue (CS ticket basically). Code is terrible at recognizing the context in which something is taking place, and I think that human intervention is also appropriate just based on the fact that MUDs are services as well as products. Good service means being able to talk to a human about your problem if need be.

--matt

[the_logos]

So how about it?

--matt

[Angie]

I think you are missing the point, Matt. Completely.

[the_logos]

Well, no, I'm not. Kavir is always going on and on about "the license." I'm just suggesting we actually get an expert opinion, though I realize that may threaten his dogma.

What Kavir wants is for people to do things that are not, I believe, covered by the license. That's fine, and it's certainly his perogative to request whatever he wants. He could request everyone mails him a ham sandwich because he believes that should be covered by the DIKU license, but I'm interested in the actual license, not what Kavir wants the license to say, or even what the DIKU guys now say they want the license to say.

As has been pointed out many times, a license is a contract, and unless that contract has a provision in it for retroactive, unilateral changes by one or the other party, those changes cannot be made.

Again, I understand that some people want things enforced that may or may not be in the license, but what's the harm in getting an expert opinion on the license? Neither Kavir nor I nor anyone else I've heard weigh in on the matter are experts in IP law. Wouldn't it be nice to actually have that information and THEN decide rather than sticking our proverbial heads in the ground and ignoring the opinions of people who are actually qualified to comment on how a court would likely (can't be sure without actually going to court, of course) interpret it? I mean, if you wanted to know if a certain kind of building could be built without it tipping over, you wouldn't ask a bunch of random forum members. You'd ask an architect who specializes in that kind of building.

Kavir and whoever else would still be free to complain that people aren't following what they think the DIKU team wanted when the license was written, or what they think the DIKU team wants now.

I just fail to see why there's any hesitation over consulting an expert on any issue, unless it's the cost, and Kavir claims to be quite interested in protecting the rights of mud creators. So, let's find out what those rights actually are vis a vis DIKU. That's all I'm saying.
--matt

[Valg]

That's largely because this thread touches on "What is proper?", as opposed to "What can I get away with?"  Once that comes into play, the whole thread might as well be written in Swahili as far as the_logos is concerned.  He's basically Unfrozen Caveman Ethical Expert.  The ways of your people confuse and frighten him.

So yes, the_logos, one could probably pay a lawyer or three, create enough paperwork to overwhelm the desire of the original DIKU team to defend their creation from it all (in a foreign country, even), and browbeat one's way into getting what one wants.  Some lawyers base their careers on this sort of thing.  It's legal to do so.

Nonetheless, I'll stick with Plan B: The people who created the codebase requested that it be handled a certain way, and since I benefit from it (admittedly in a very tortuous and distant way), I'm willing to respect those wishes.

If I thought of MUDing as my job and not as my hobby, I'd take the time to write my own codebase and profit from it, rather than weasel someone else's away from them.  I'm also pleased that the TMS staff and the other members of the MUD community act responsibly and actively discourage people from that sort of weaseling.  The MUD community as a whole benefits when independent coders feel comfortable releasing their creations, and that benefit disappears when you encourage people to violate their intent.

[KaVir]

Then I'll spell it out for you:

1) I've already heard from several people over the years who claim to have consulted lawyers, and no two answers seem to be the same - I don't believe you would receive a clear-cut answer, and any answer you did receive would vary based on the phrasing of your question.

2) Not something I would have mentioned, but as you insist of repeating yourself until I answer... I have very serious doubts about both your honesty and integrity, and certainly wouldn't trust you with my money.

3) My interests lie in defending the interests of mud developers, and in that respect my overall views would change very little regardless of the outcome.

[the_logos]

Ahh, lovely ad hominem attacks. Nicely done! You're such a little cutie.

I don't care what people can get away with. It's already the case that people who wish to gain revenue from DIKU codebases can do so. I mean, they are and have been for years. Your mud, for instance, gains revenue from running a DIKU, but presumably doesn't generate any profit. So that question is already settled. I'm certainly not interested in what I can "get away with" since I don't use DIKU and have no reason to use it. I'm just interested in a legitimate expert's opinion on what the license says.

Well, the thing is, the license is a contract, with two parties. One side of the contract doesn't get any more rights to dictate the content of the contract than the other does. It makes just as much sense to say that the person on the other side of the contract (the mud admin) can do whatever he/she wants from it because he or she had a different intent when agreeing to the contract.

But we're not talking about profit here. We're talking about revenue. We all agree that the DIKU license prohibits profit, assuming the license even continues to have any legal weight at all. Without seeing financial statements there's no way to know if a MUD like Medievia or even Carrion Fields is making a profit from the revenue they generate. Kavir's assertion is that just gaining revenue is against the license, despite the fact that all the license talks about is profit.

So I mean, if just gaining revenue is morally wrong, why does Carrion Fields have a paypal account set up to get revenue from its players? That's not an attack. I mean, I know you guys aren't making a profit, but you can't have it both ways. Either it's ok to generate revenue or not. If it's ok to generate revenue but not a profit (which is what a rational interpretation of the license gives you), then why all the attacks on Medievia without any proof they're generating a profit?

Anyway, all I'm suggesting is that we get an actual, legitimate expert opinion. I can't believe anyone here would argue against the benefits of obtaining greater knowledge about the subject matter. That kind of argument is usually reserved for religious fundamentalists for whom greater knowledge is a threat, as it may cast doubt upon their dogmatic assertions.

--matt

[the_logos]

So why hear it second-hand? I'm also not talking about just "consulting a lawyer." There are probably people on these forums more in touch with intellectual property law than many lawyers who don't do IP work. I'm talking about consulting a true intellectual property expert.

That's pretty funny coming from a guy who constantly spews nonsense about the DIKU license, going so far as to set up a web page devoted to flaming another MUD. Besides, we'd be paying the lawyer, not each other.

Really? So you speak for all mud developers? How amusingly arrogant. Cause I gotta tell you, there are a LOT more people using DIKU than developing DIKU, and the course of action you insist on gives them less options than actually just following the license does. You wish to reduce their sphere of action by convincing them that they don't have rights they quite likely do. In fact, I'm a mud developer, with 4 successful MUDs, and you certainly don't speak for me. Sounds to me like you're interested only in the interests of a very narrowly defined segment of mud developers.

In any case, this is what I expected. You're not interested in what the license says. You're interested in shoving your point of view down everyone else's throat and by god, your opinion isn't changing regardless of the facts.

--matt

[KaVir]

I've never "spewed any nonsense" - I've posted the interpretation of the Diku team, backed up by legal references. As opposed to you, who have posted your own views of how you'd like to see the Diku licence exploited^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hinterpretted, backed up by your ignorant rantings of how ignoring the Diku licence would make the world a better place.

And the webpage I set up was actually put there to stop the regular six-monthly flame wars regarding the mud in question - and it worked.

No, but I speak in defence of their work. As opposed to people like you, who would rather see such mud developers screwed. Why, one asks? Presumably because with less people contributing to the community, you'd have less competition to worry about. You're painfully transparent.

You expected me not to trust the mud community's equivilent of the slimey second-hand car salesman? Hardly a compliment, but better than nothing!

[Valg]

So I mean, if just gaining revenue is morally wrong

Never did I say that.  There's plenty of for-profit games which I have zero problem with, like Threshold, Everquest, etc.

why does Carrion Fields have a paypal account set up to get revenue from its players?

We accept donations via our webpage to pay the costs of operating the game.  We also sell merchandise (T-shirts, whatnot) to do the same.  The game itself is absolutely free- RL money has no impact on the "inside".  This is all consistent with the intent of the people who provided the database, as confirmed by their own words (in documentation, as well as conversations).  We're 100% in compliance with their intent.

[the_logos]

You spew nonsense anytime you claim the DIKU license prohibits revenue.

I don't want to see mud developers screwed. I just want them to have access to real information about their rights. Then they can make their own decision. You, on the other hand, want to force your point down their throats and won't tolerate alternative viewpoints. Unlike you, I'd be quite willing to change my point of view if an IP expert told me I was likely wrong. I've got no agenda here besides just finding out what the license actually says, unlike you. Don't you want people to be able to make choices based on real information, or is it more fun to hold forth as if you're a zealot priest and cast stones at anyone who (quite reasonably) disagrees?

Man, you are so small-minded you just assume everyone else thinks like you do. Your ignorance of successful mud development is astonishing, though that's not surprising. I want more competition, not less. A rising tide raises all ships, regardless of how cliche, is true, and I've got nothing but confidence that a bigger text MUD market just means more players for us anyway, as we rock. My biggest nightmare is loudmouthed, small-minded people like you trying so hard to force your own personal viewpoint (which brooks no room for disagreement) on everyone that most serious, aspiring game developers forgo text MUDs and go work on graphical MUDs instead. This leads to even less quality text MUDs, which leads to smaller players, and, worse-case scenario, a death spiral for text MUDs.

No, what I want are more professionals. More people who -can- do this as a full time job. More people who have a serious vested interest in making great text MUDs. Hobbyists can definitely do this, of course, as witnessed by great hobbyist MUDs like Shadows of Isildur and Discworld, but it's a lot easier to remain dedicated for years and years if your livelihood depends on it. It's also a lot easier to work full-time on your MUD if that IS your full-time job.

Ah, your flames are about what I expect from you, but no, what I meant (as you well-know) is that it's to be expected that you'd choose not to get an expert opinion as that might risk discovering you're wrong. It's a shame. There's nothing wrong with being wrong. Happens to all of us.

--matt

[KaVir]

If you believe I'm "spewing nonsense" then why do you keep trying to convince me to give you money so that you can speak to a lawyer? Looks like you've made your mind up as well - just the sort of hypocracy I've come to expect from you.

Yes, apparently you do, otherwise you wouldn't encourage people to ignore the usasge conditions of mud developers who have put in countless hours work in order to provide the mudding community with free codebases.

Oh, so would I - but I'm not going to throw money at you in order to get back a "Yeah, he said I was right" response.

Hardly - I've contributed plenty to the mud community. Several versions of two different codebases, numerous snippets, etc. What have you contributed?

Once again, I ran a popular mud - and closed it down - long before you ever started working on your mud. I've also released a codebase that's being used by over a hundred muds today - how many are using yours? 5 IRE clones? Not all people define "successful" by the same yardstick.

[Traithe]

You know, if you're interested, KaVir, I'd be happy to print out the license and bring it to one of my law professors for an opinion. To be honest I'm quite curious about it myself at this point. Obviously it wouldn't be as well-developed an analysis as that given by a lawyer specifically paid to invest time in the project, but it's much better than anything any one of us could piece together.

Granted, I did just get hired by Matt so I'm not exactly a completely neutral third party here, but on the other hand I did recently release a good 20-30 thousand lines of code to the public that primarily relies on the strength of the DIKU license for its own licensing, so arguably I've got some amount of self-interest on both sides here.

Anyhow, just let me know. Tomorrow's the last day of class before spring break, so the second week of March is really the earliest I'll be able to speak with my prof about the issue.

[Traithe]

Or... heck, I'll just do some research on it over spring break. I've got access to the same Westlaw my profs do, and enough basic grounding in IP law to find some secondary sources to point me in the right direction.

Yes, why yes, I am a nerd.

To clarify before I invest any time in this, what exactly are the legal issues here?

From where I'm sitting it looks like they are as follows:

1. Whether the wording of the DIKU license is too ambiguous to be practically enforceable;

2. If not, whether any actual ambiguity in a license cuts against the licensor, even when their intentions regarding the ambiguity have been made explicitly clear outside the four corners of the document (i.e. the "profit" thing and the DIKU team's further clarification after the release), and;

3. If the answer to #2 is "no", whether a lack of enforcement on the part of the licensor in the face of blatant and repeated violations of their license (a la Medievia) invalidates their right to future enforcement of the copyright against infringers.

At the very least if I brought some of this research to my law professor she'd be more likely to spend the time to look it over, since all she'd really have to do at that point is tell me that I'm right or that I've gotten it completely wrong for reason X.

Thoughts? Any other issues of legal contention that I'm missing here?

[KaVir]

That's a generous offer Traithe, although several people have already done (or claimed to do) the same over the years, with lawyers as well as professors, and their responses invariably seem to favour whichever view they supported beforehand with their evidence limited to "s/he said I was right".

If you do decide to ask your professor, I would suggest the following:

1) Try to phrase your questions as neutrally as possible, and:

2) Ask for references to back up any responses, then:

3) Post both the questions (exactly as asked) and the responses (complete with links to comparible legal cases) with as little 'opinion' as possible.

Links to neutral information would be far more valuable than a second-hand opinion, particularly as you could be accused of being biased in either direction.

[Traithe]

Sure, not a problem.

Re: posting the sources for the research (probably in this case some statutes, cases and secondary sources), that may be more problematic. I can at the very least provide legal citations with all of it, so anyone with access to the proper materials can track it down and verify it with very little effort. Depending on some copyright issues I may not be able to provide copies of the actual documents, though, and I don't know if most of them would otherwise be available on non-commercial legal resource sites (i.e. Findlaw). Most online legal research is done on either Westlaw or LexisNexis, both of which charge serious chunks of change for their service. (Fortunately it's all free while you're a law student.)

So anyway, I'll see what I can do. Should prove interesting.

[the_logos]

I'm not encouraging them to ignore the usage conditions. A simple command of English lets one see that the DIKU license prohibits profit, not revenue. Revenue isn't even mentioned in connection with an outright prohibition. Only profit is mentioned in connection with an outright prohibition.

Ahh, great! Then I'm sure you'll have no problem agreeing to change your mind if I pay for one myself, right? (Waits for you to accuse me of finding some recognized IP expert who I can pay tens of thousands of dollars to in order to buy off.) Traithe's idea is pretty good too, though as he points out, not as good as paid advice.


I had typed out a list, but realized that it just made me sound like a braggart. I'll skip this one.


Mmm, yeah, again, I need to refrain from commenting on this as you're going to be outrageously offended if I do.

As to your offer, Chad, I know I'd also appreciate you taking the time to do that. As we talked about, you're not an IP expert at all, but you have a professor or two who is, no doubt. Since Kavir isn't willing, I may be willing to just foot the bill for a paid opinion myself, but I'm not sure. It's awfully expensive and I don't have any vested interest one way or another.

I'd roughly agree with what Kavir in his requests except in that there is no such thing as "neutral information" in terms of interpreting anything. What I'm mainly interested in is a practicing IP attorney who can tell us how a real court is likely to interpret the license. I'd say we need the following questions answered:

1. Who actually owns the DIKU license?

2. Does it matter what Hans & company say about the license after it's been issued, both if they own the license or if the university owns the license?

3. Has their lack of enforcement attempts affected their control over the IP?

4. Does the reported (I've not tested, but I recall reading someone else did) impossibility of fulfilling at least one of the license conditions (emailing them at the addresses in the license in order to alert them that you're running a DIKU) affect their claim to control over the IP?

5. Does the clause about not charging money for distributing any part of DIKUmud apply here? [My note: Hrm, I'm not sure what kind of lawyer we need to answer this question. It's not an IP expert unfortunately though. Perhaps Chad can answer this: What kind of lawyer would one consult to get a reasonably valid opinion on what would constitute distribution of a codebase? Is sending text down the telnet pipe to the user client distribution? Or is it just sending source code to people? Are there even any precedents here? Is this an IP field question? A communications law issue? Something else?

6. What's the definition of profit likely to be used?

7. If profit is defined as revenue, is there any basis for MUDs to collect revenue to pay for server costs or personnel costs or whatnot?


Hrm. This seems to get more complicated than I thought. If you can get a professor to really investigate all of these on our behalf, power to you, Chad. Figuring out who really owns the DIKU license is going to be a particular pain in the ass I think, unfortunately.

--matt

[KaVir]

You're encouraging them to use your interpretation of the conditions.

A simple command of English lets one see that the licence actually states "You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way", and a simple usage of a dictionary shows that one "possible way" of defining profit is "a valuable return : GAIN".

So "nothing", then. Unless you count hiring someone to write a codebase for you, then licensing it to other people for 5-digit figures plus royalties.

So I did a quick search - my mistake! Apparently there are only four IRE clones. Hopefully Traithe will be able to do something a bit more original.

Of course you have a vested interest - otherwise you wouldn't bother.

Once again, ownership of the licence is entirely irrelevent - the licence is simply a means to grant permission to use copyrighted work. What you seem to be trying to ask is who owns the copyright, and as I've already pointed out to you, it's the Diku team. The US Copyright number is TX 4-424-366.

You mean if the wording is unclear, and the original copyright holder later clarifies the actual intent, what is the likely outcome should someone attempt to use their own interpretation instead.



"5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"

False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away."

You mean "If the licence says I have to send an email, and that email bounces, does that mean I don't have to follow the licence any more?"? Come on, are you honestly telling me you believe that?

Your licence requires that the mud owner pay you a large amount of cash. Do you think that, if they send you the cash and for some reason your account refuses the payment, they are free to ignore your licence from that point on?

I believe these two are the crux of the situation.

[TheTrollCop]

Come now KaVir, give credit where credit is due. Lusternia although of the same engine and mediocrely different features, has quite the storyline. Estarra has created  an imaginative and immersive world, it is just too bad the price of playing in it is a bit high. My hat definately tips in her direction though, and I expect equally great things from Traithe after examining Shadows of Isildur.

Although I must admit, I share your disdain for Mihaly here. For a professional developer within the MUD community he sure has a way of acting like a pugnacious teen, especially when his statements are challenged. C'est la vie, though.

If you do decide to go through with your research Traithe, I'd be interested in hearing the results. You seem like the unbiased type that could put his boss's bias aside while researching.  Although I have a feeling we may find that KaVir is more in the right on this issue than IRE is.

I recall reading an interview done on some of the original Diku team on Orion's own site, perhaps someone could just get in contact with them and try to settle this little dispute once and for all.  Although I must wonder if even a definate answer from one of the Diku team will settle the qualms of either side.

[Hephos]