Amazingly enough you obviously haven't read any of the forums, go take a quick refresher. Quite a few who were in the original topic have nothing (truly, unless you go off on paranoid tangents) to win from weakening the license.

Much the troll we are, hmm? You believe you are actually helping any cause? Regardless, to your points. Of course we aren't discussing morals, we are in a LEGAL ISSUES forum, to discuss the legality of an item, not the morality.

I have been questioned about my motives and responded, again, refer yourself to the other thread and do some homework.

Alright, let's bring it down a level then.

1. You are in a Legal Issues Forum on a MUD board.
2. The legality of a license is being discussed.
3. Blathering, Whining, Zealotry, etc. is all pointless as the issue has never been to court.

Alastair, while I understand that the reading of this current thread (as presented in your outline) has been quite ludicrous, it does not change the fact that this is a legal forum. People may be disgusted all they want, but in reality legality over-rules "spirit" when concerning contracts/licenses, but continue mud-slinging until it goes to court. If nothing else, it provides for a fun read and a neat way to waste time.

-----

It seems to me that many people are going to extremes to break down the license into as many sub-levels as they can to examine them. I'm sorry, but that is not how things will work. Unlike the other thread, this one has gone downhill with a bunch of zealots posting ridiculous drivel.

The license is WEAK, no one needs to TRY to weaken it. The license would probably not hold up to court scrutiny, and if it did would more than likely be construed as "non-commercial" usage only. Pretending that hidden within the texts of the license are various implied conditions is quite another stretch, but coupled with posts of later dates it paints their intent as it stands now. The question is, as with any license, was it readily noticeable that the intent of the implied condition was present at the time of creation of the license. Using the Officious bystander test would be the only sure way of doing this, anybody volunteer to conduct it? Would we believe you? So again we would have to go to a court to define the implied conditions.

My viewpoint:

The DIKUMud software, while in wide usage, is still a dogged out codebase, the reason it received such wide popularity is due to the fact that it facilitated stock set-ups. While other mud servers/libs did much to prevent this (i.e. George Reese and pulling the Nightmare codebase, due to stock LP's) or were hard to program/create (CoolMud, MOO, LP) a game in. Of course you could download LIBS for LP or CORES for Cool/Moo/etc they were still harder to get accustomed to.

I fail to see why anyone would really want to start a commercial DIKU (or deriv) mud, unless they made extensive modifications to it, at which point they might as well have written their own codebase. As a player I wouldn't play a $Diku.

Accepting donations in my book is fine, giving in-game rewards for donation.. while it may break the "spirit" of the license, it is still debateable whether it breaks the license itself.

Kavir, on Gross-Profit:
In the examples given, we are using a mud that sells in-game items for real money. I'm still not sure this would apply to the situation, but as we saw the final outcome that determines gross profit is "Net Receipts - Cost of Goods Sold", i'm convinced that the mud could set a standard rate on coding, maybe based off of regional contract programming rates and charge at (Custom Coding Costs * Amt. Time of Coding = Cost of Item) which in the end if balanced would set their gross profits to 0.


Opinionated Note: For general knowledge, arguing/debating the license shouldn't weaken it unless it is proven wrong. Quite the reverse actually, the license as it stands is in a state where it would have to go to court to be weakened, though a strong community stands behind the intent of it. Even, hypothetically, if it does go to court it still will be able to be re-written.

John: No, Alastair just attacks at random =)

Sinuhe: Interesting viewpoint on free mud vs. commercial mud, care to start another thread about it?

[Hodor]

Aardwolf does not make a profit in the sense that the head coder keeps even a single dollar for himself, all of the money raised to through donations are put back into the MUD, keeping our T1 going and increasing the player base through advertising. Lasher has always been very honest in the past, and continues to do so now. There has never been any signal from the imm staff that Aardwolf has a desire to become a pay-to-play MUD. You make it sound as if there is an evil plot running behind the scenes here, while all i see is a MUD assuring continuation and current standard with a method which has worked for years now. Of course i can always be wrong. I wonder which imm is the Dr. Evil then.......

[KaVir]

That's not selling a product, that's selling a service. From the IRS link:

Businesses that sell services.
You do not have to figure the cost of goods sold if the sale of merchandise is not an income-producing factor for your business. Your gross profit is the same as your net receipts (gross receipts minus any refunds, rebates, or other allowances). Most professions and businesses that sell services rather than products can figure gross profit directly from net receipts in this way.

[Hephos]

[Darrik]

Although true, you'll notice the 'most professions and businesses'.  In this case, an argument could be made that the time spent building an item could be considered cost of sales.  However, since Aardwolf has already said they only provide items that can be found in the game, trying to charge the 5 seconds it takes to invoke an item and give it to a player as cost of sales would require them to be paying their builders to invoke these objects.  This would also apply to creating new items.  The difference between the revenue you make from giving the item and the salary of the builder who gave the item would go towards gross profit.

DV

[Hodor]

[Hephos]

[Deathwing]

[KaVir]

Salary is a type of expense - specifically a "controllable expense" (or "variable expense"). It is applied after gross profit has been calculated.

That is a part of criminal law, not civil law.

[Alastair]

IMO, _what_ Aardwolf does with its money isn't the least bit our concern. It's how he gets it which matters.

Whether he pays for his mud with the donations or snickers all the way to the piggy bank is between him and his players.

[John]

Well his justification was he desperately needed to do it to keep the mud alive. I just pointed out his actions suggest otherwise.

[Alastair]

OK, let's sum up again: the word of the license says you can't make *ANY* profit.

Whichever way you interpret profit, this means you can't exchange donations for in-game benefits. How hard is that? That's the letter of the thing.

Then there's the spirit of the thing, which, depending on the legal system, may or may not be considered: the andlo-american judicial practice actually puts more stock in this than continental European court. Regardless, there's also no intperpretation of that same sentence in terms of spirit which allows you to exchange cash for in-game benefits.

In the worst case, there's no meeting of minds required by any contract, which comes back to the fact that you can't even use DIKU at all.

Aside from that, ignoring ethics and morals in a legal discussion might be your take on it, yet ethics and morals tend to be one _huge_ factor in legal considerations, whether we're talking about legislation itself or judicial activity.

I'm sure you've heard the term "good faith basis", right? This one actually plays a huge role in interpreting laws and contracts, and if "good faith basis" isn't a term heavily influenced by ethics, I don't know what is.

Glad to entertain you.

Which comes back to saying "don't exchange donations for in-game benefits or don't use it altogether".

The step in-between, though, all paranoid considerations aside, could be as simple as "Hrm... I have this MUD running now, which is heavily modded. I want to go commercial. If I recode from scratch, I also need to recode everything I changed in DIKUrative..." From there it could be either the who cares, I'll just pretend I changed everything (Med) or What the heck, I'll take donations now to finance my recoding efforts.

This is quite obviously where we're not ready to agree (see explanations above), as I don't think there's any wiggling room despite the poor wording.

Agreed, assuming everyone argues in good faith. Which I have a hard time to believe from certain posters here, due, among other things, to past posting history.

[quote=KaVir,Nov. 06 2003,11:45]I see from a standpoint how it can be taken that way. Although that could be applied to almost any amount of situations and stretched around. When we purchase software online that gives us the link to download are we purchasing goods or services? We are not paying for physical packaging or anything else, but the program and the cost the author puts on his creation.

It was my fault for being unclear in the last post, I stated coding and I meant ITEM, so I apologize. My point is that the item is what is being sold, the cost of the item is being calculated as mentioned, cost of production is almost always calculated in goods. So if the mud is selling the item, really no matter what calculation they use to price it, then it would be deductible from Net receipts.

Note: Not saying this applies to Aardwolf specifically. But my little calculation was just an example, a precoded item can still have a defined cost. E.g. downloadable software that you pay for.

Alastair:
No, i'm sorry Alastair, it's not whichever way I interpret profit nor anybody on the other side of the little red line interprets it. It's how the courts would interpret the license. I happen to agree with the previous claim that the specific part of the license we are referring to will be intrepreted as "non-commercial", looking up precedence (google is temporarily blocked from the base i'm at and other search engines blow).

The wording is quite specific and mentions nothing about gratuities, donations or the like. It also makes no mention how an IRS registered non-profit organization may use the software, nor does it even attempt to define it's meaning of profit. How does it apply to a hobby under law, under the IRS definition?

While I agree ethics do have a take in things, so does common sense. Your mention of "Good Faith" basis would probably not have the effect intended.  I see no dishonorable intent in receiving donations to keep a server running, keeping no money on the side, nor do I see any foul play in thanking someone for donating. I receive a ribbon every christmas for dropping change in Veteran's and Red Cross buckets. Maybe they should register as a buisness, selling those damned flimsy ribbons.

Is the money being given without expectation of reward? Yes, we've heard from players who have said so. Is there a set list of what kind of rewards you can get for paying a certain amount of money? No, not that has been shown. Neither has it been shown that giving a donation ALWAYS results in an item of /said/ quality. So I would say that Aardwolf is operating on good faith on his contractual obligations, at least by their own omission, they aren't intending to profit.

Whether or not the DIKUMud license creators believe that this is the correct definition of profit would also be taken into consideration, it would also be taken into consideration the wording of their license and the general interpretation of it. Sitting down and looking at the license would someone think that it disallows donation?

I still stand by my point that legality over-rules "spirit".

No, it comes back to saying NON-COMMERCIAL usage. Donations will not count as commercial income, otherwise non-profit organizations would be screwed.

True, some here aren't arguing in good faith, on either side. I do understand people arguing my points, which I'm happy about.

[Alastair]

Mind you, when you buy packaged software, you buy exactly the same, which is the license to use the software, not the rights to the software itself. The tangible medium of the box and CD gives the illusion of a tangible product.

Now as far as I understand, by convention you'd still refer to downloaded software as "a product" - the moment when it becomes a service rather than a product being perhaps a bit more difficult to determine. There seems to be a (less-well established) convention which considers, eg, MUDs as a service, and in-game items moreso. This is quite evident for instance in all the paperwork involved in the BS vs. Mythic suit (which however never went into judgement, but I digress).

So I'd rather think we're in the realm of services than goods.

Quite obviously because we're in the grey realm of international law, and that the IRS definition might be moot, depending on where a potential lawsuit would actually take place. And this isn't necessarily the USA - the practice stating whether the default juridiction is the place of purchase rather than the place of sale actually varies from country to country, and in many cases, as far as I know, it's more of a common practice rather than set in stone.

The issue isn't donations per se, it's what is given in exchange, as you pointed out yourself. If it's recognition, I personally wouldn't mind one bit either (there was a poll up recently about that), and I'd go as far as saying that having a donator's name on a plaque or a helpfile _in_ the MUD remains perfectly acceptable. If however the reward is XP / QP / an item, and the donator expect it, it really becomes a sale.
That's where I draw the line. It ain't red, BTW. We're not at war as far as I know.
In the Aardwolf-specific case, though, we have this admission from Lasher, in the post which started this thread:

Yes there is a reward given,
but there is nothing given that cannot be gotten through just plain
working for it either - the only advantage donators have over non-donators
is a time saving. Also, what I am giving as a reward is nothing that
is part of stock Diku or ROM - trivia points/quest points. Don't get
me wrong, trying to justify it on those grounds would be very silly,
my point is that this is a very fine line.

A fine line which I believe is already being crossed - no matter, in the end effect, if it is really to pay expenses needed to keep the game up, or not. In the very specific case of Aardwolf, John has already pointed out the inconsistencies, but again, IMO, this doesn't even matter. Whether you can relate to why somebody does something doesn't make such an act right or wrong per se.

And yes, if we're considering the degree to which what I believe to be a transgression is taking place, in the specific case of Aardwolf, this remains a really minor sin by my standards. But the line has been crossed in my opinion, and I'd rather that as a conclusion of all this, Aardwolf reconsider their current practice.

Again, I think it speaks poorly for your game if you _have_ to resort to in-game buffs to recieve donations.

[Darrik]

What I meant by my use of "salary" is the cost of labor to create the goods sold. From your own link, the irs.gov page, chapter 6 ( Chapter before gross profit ):

Mind you, the 'do not include any amounts paid to yourself' would refer to the owner... one could still pay a builder to work and consider that cost of labor. Sorry to be unclear before.

Alistair:

A product is never a service, and a service is not a product. With downloadable software, you are purchasing the actual software, AKA the product. With a mud, you are provided with a service... the ability to link to the owner's software and use it through their system. This is the same with an html site, mud, server, phone system, etc.

I agree with what you say, Alistair, but I wanted to make it more clear.

That seems fair, i'd much rather term it a product, but in the context it is put, it actually seems a bit fair to term it a service. Though as you mentioned this is not well established and should be considered as such.

The happy gray medium, I was using USA law as an example as Aardwolf is being the example, and due to the Copyright being under U.S. Copyright. Not that the last actually means anything as we saw from the DeCSS suits, the internet itself is actually somewhat of a legal testing grounds at the moment.

In the end with no more quotes, I believe you have proven that in the specific case of Aardwolf, since rewards are an expectation of a donation then it may actually a sale, and that there was at least in reverse an expectation of profit (by the player).

On the other hand, I don't believe your view that a helpfile is okay is as consistent, to me that is the same as a wearing a i'm a donator helmet. Which, of course, depends on the mud as in some social muds a helpfile about you is a much better thing than a helmet. Of course, if it is a non-expected reward for a donation I really don't care what the item is, which is where the argument is with most people.

To clear up my view on the matter, it's my firm belief that the license was written with the intention of being non-commercial and that somewhere along the lines people helped flesh the intent out. While it is the DIKUMuds team right to modify their license, it is also their responsibility to do so, and to notify license holders of such.

I also believe that a game that accepts donations is not in violation (the circleMud interpretation) and that rewards for donations are acceptable, as long as they are not expected and are not used to sneak around the rules.

I still also believe that while being debated well, the definition of profit as it stands in the DikuMUD is open to extreme interpretation and will always be unless amended or brought to court.

The main problem I see in amending the license is what to do with those already running the software under the old license. The license makes no claims to being able to modify the license or restrict usage of the software anywhere, so the user has not agreed upon it. Nor does it specifically state that they are not allowed to. I believe it would be implied that the license and software are not revokable as long as one follows them (again a matter for a court).

Is Aardwolf violating the Diku license? Given the quote from a player, it seems the rewards are expected and therefore a sale. Though the admin of Aardwolf state it is only a reward for a donation, this would have to be investigated a bit more. Even if it were a sale, was Aardwolf violating the profit condition in the license? I still can't be too sure, it is really a stant still until a court gets involved and based on the country.

The lines are drawn, some agree, some disagree, in the end that's all that really can happen. Without a court ruling there isn't much else that can be done, you can discourage all you want but in some cases, such as Aardwolf, with strong and devoted playerbases it may not do much good.

I do say it's time for a different mud software to take the throne. I'm not releasing mine though... too many code thieves and license breakers! Just kidding... or maybe not.

[Jazuela]

[solefly]

Um... They host their own server... Full T1 runs them $750/mo. I guess..

[John]

[ProwlingKitty]

The thread wether rewarding players with quest points and trivia points is completely irrelevant at the moment. Lasher has already stated (on the boards in Aardwolf) that he will not be rewarding donations any more until V3 is in. At which time Aardwolf will be running custom code not bothered by a license. For those saying Lasher's will only remove the notices and claim the codebase is no longer DIKU (like Medievia). Lasher already said he's willing to show the complete CVS logs and srouce code to a third-party under a NDA. What more do you want?