Top Mud Sites Forum Return to TopMudSites.com
Go Back   Top Mud Sites Forum > Mud Development and Administration > Legal Issues
Click here to Register

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-29-2003, 02:22 PM   #81
Hephos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sweden
Home MUD: www.sharune.com
Posts: 359
Hephos is on a distinguished road
Well mailing them i didn't even get a reply, so I guess they give a **** about their own licence or any issues regarding it. Mailed seifert.
Hephos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 03:04 PM   #82
Stilton
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 100
Stilton is on a distinguished road
KaVir:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
You didn't seem to disagree with Tyche when he stated "Intent is a consideration in contract law."
Why would I disagree with that statement? It's true. Before you jump on me, it does not necessarily imply what you want it to about the Diku license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
The specific example you pull out makes reference to the officious bystander test. Please demonstrate why an officious bystander would interpret the license as restrictively as you do.

From the top paragraph of your own link:
(Canadian law)
When Terms Are Implied:

"... There has to be strong evidence to support the conclusion that the implication of a term is permissible in the circumstances. It would seem that there are three main instances when this may be done: (i) when it is reasonably necessary, having regard to the surrounding circumstances; and in particular the previous course of dealing between the parties, if any; (ii) when there is an operative trade or business usage or custom that may be said to govern the relationship of the parties; and (iii) when some statute of its own motion implies a term into the kind of contract that is in question." (Fridman, Law of Contract in Canada, 3rd ed., p. 475, as quoted by Chipman, J.A. in Spiropoulos v. Chagnon (1998), 161 N.S.R.(2d) 202, para. 7.)

So, where's your required "strong evidence" of one of those three things? Show me some previous dealings between the parties, or some customs in this type of dealing (from the time the deal was made), or statutory law or precedent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
The question then becomes, what was their agreement with the University.
That certainly sounds like something you should look into if you want to substantiate your claims about certain activities violating the license.

Stilton
Stilton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2003, 05:18 PM   #83
arkanes
New Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3
arkanes is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
This is 100% true and does not refute my point that donations without an in game reward also violate the license, assuming that your definition of "profit" as "gross income" is correct. If your definition of profit is NOT correct, then it's not relevent because as long as you don't make (or try to make) a net profit, then you're in the clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yet according to Tyche, courts have previously intepretted similar clauses as "for non-commercial use only".
Also true. However, it's also not really relevent - commercial is a subset of for profit, not a superset. Panhandling is for-profit, but noncommercial. This is why donations would violate the license, if you made a profit off of them, regardless of whether or not in-game rewards were offered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
I'd like it if you read the entire paragraph before you rebutted - the license MEANS what it says. It's possible that a court would consider the Diku teams intent, and allow that intent to change the strict interpertation of the license, but we're talking about an unstated intention modifying the meaning then.

As for my legal qualifications, how about you post your law school diploma first? You bring up the intentions of the Diku creators alot, but this IS the legal forum and thier intentions are only meaningful as far as a court would be likely to consider them.
That can change alot from court to court.

The laws of the US are being discussed because a) I'm familar with them and not the laws of Denmark and b) because Aardwolf is based in the US and any suit would have to be brought under US law.
arkanes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2003, 05:05 AM   #84
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deathwing wrote:
As far as I know, you don't have a legal background either, Kavir, yet you seem to be claiming pretty specifically how the license would apply, and how a court would interpert that license.
No, I most certainly am not. My claim is the same as it was in my first post in this thread, in which I stated "And as to whether it would stand up in court - that is debatable for all licenses, and could be argued either way with the Diku license. Until such time as it is, however, I think it is reasonable enough to accept the authors definition and honour their intentions."

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I wrote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arkanes responded:
This is 100% true and does not refute my point that donations without an in game reward also violate the license
Not if they are outside of the mud. If you accept donations via your webpage, and those donations have no affect on the game, it would not violate the license because it would never fall under the scope of the license.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
I'd like it if you read the entire paragraph before you rebutted - the license MEANS what it says.
It is not as simple as that, particularly when the "meaning" depends on interpretation. Even in the case of clearly written licenses, the meaning can be interpreted differently under the laws of different countries (or even different US states).
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2003, 12:50 PM   #85
Darrik
New Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 25
Darrik is on a distinguished road
DikuMud was copyrighted with the US Copyright Office:
1. Registration Number:    TX-4-424-366  
Title:    DikuMud : program / by Sebastian Hammer, Michael Seifert, Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt, Tom Madsen, Katja Nyboe.
Note:    Printout (50 p.) only deposited.
Claimant:    [Author and claimant] Katja Nyboe, acTom Madsen, acSebastian Hammer, acHans-Henrik Staerfeldt, & acMichael Seifert , 1969-
Created:    1990

Published:    1Jun90

Registered:    20May96

Title on © Application:    DikuMud gamma; Diku mud.
Miscellaneous:    C.O. corres.

This of course means that US copyright law applies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by
This is 100% true and does not refute my point that donations without an in game reward also violate the license, assuming that your definition of "profit" as "gross income" is correct. If your definition of profit is NOT correct, then it's not relevent because as long as you don't make (or try to make) a net profit, then you're in the clear.
If you accept donations through your web site, and do not advertise for donations on your mud nor offer rewards for those donations, the donations fall outside the scope of the license.  This is what KaVir meant by his statement.

Darrik Vequir
Darrik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 07:57 AM   #86
Gicker42
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4
Gicker42 is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Diku license

Deleted to avoid restarting a 4 year old post. Apologies.

Last edited by Gicker42 : 07-27-2007 at 08:28 AM.
Gicker42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 08:31 AM   #87
KaVir
Legend
 
KaVir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Name: Richard
Home MUD: God Wars II
Posts: 2,052
KaVir will become famous soon enoughKaVir will become famous soon enough
Re: Diku license

Quote:
Another thing. I wonder how many of the people who are claiming using Diku for donations or profit is unethical, are breaking trademarks or copyrights somewhere along the line in their own mud.
Well you are, apparently. Or did you obtain permission to run a Transformers mud?

P.S: Any particularly reason why you decided to dig up a flame thread from 2003 and then make four replies?
KaVir is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools


Diku license - Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DIKU License Revisited xanes Legal Issues 14 07-27-2007 08:16 AM
What if there had never been DIKU? Threshold Tavern of the Blue Hand 24 05-26-2006 07:43 PM
The DIKU license the_logos Tavern of the Blue Hand 242 05-06-2006 12:28 PM
original Diku? david Advertising for Players 0 02-16-2006 02:26 AM
Diku License -- Facts? tresspassor Legal Issues 1 08-15-2002 04:00 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Style based on a design by Essilor
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2014