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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

First, the facts you will need to know in order to flame me correctly,
I'm a player at Aardwolf. Oh yes, I've reached the impressive level of 9. Feel free to consider me a zealot who will say anything to defend the mud I play at. (I'm an imm (or wizard really, as it's LP) on another mud and have 982 levels on different characters on yet another mud, but who cares?)
Furthermore, I've not posted here before unless I recently started sleepwalking and doing the posting without my own knowledge. Since I'm not 100% certain, you may feel free to flame me on the grounds of me being another poster creating new alias in order to state my opinions in a less stigmatized persona. Now, you will of course need some quotes too...

I think you're going about this in the wrong way. You've found things you don't agree on, and keep trying to convince each other. I promise, this is futile. After many stupid flamewars on IRC, I know that very few will allow themselves to be convinced and even fewer will actually admit to being convinced. So, let's look at what you're agreeing on instead.
1) The people who wrote the DIKU license were students, not lawyers.
2) The license is simple and easy to understand, unless you're deliberately trying to interpret it to your benefit.

Now, let's think about this for a minute. The people who wrote the license were not lawyers and did probably not look up various definitions of the word 'profit' before adding it to the license. How would the average student interpret the word then? As I'm a student, I take the liberty of interpreting 'profit' as the money the shopowner has left when he has paid his employees, tax, rent and refilled the stockroom. When asking other students I am presented with a similar definition. (Well, except the one who explained to me it's a guy who is standing on a box and shouting things about biblical characters, but I think she misheard it as 'prophet'.) Now, you guys can probably argue that it's already eastablished that the license read 'make profit', not 'profit'. Please do. It will just show you totally missed the point, and enable me to laugh. Laugh more - live longer!

If I hadn't read this forum and decided to download and set up DIKU on some server today, I'd interpret the license as follows;

1) I may not charge people to play, including charging for special benefits in the game.
2) I may not charge people if I provide them with the DIKUMUD software.

If I suddenly found myself in need of more money to be able to afford keeping the mud server online, I'd of course turn to those who have a similar interest: the players. It's pretty obvious that I can't _force_ them to pay due to the license. but how about begging for money, ie donations? If I give some money to a beggar in the street, and he goes to 7-eleven and buys a hot dog for it, was that profit? Perhaps to the IRS, but I would not think of it that way, and thus I would not believe it was against the license to keep my game up with the help of donations.

I think very few people go around analyzing every little action and pondering whether or not it's okay with laws and ethic. I don't stop and consider my actions unless I've got an indication that what I'm doing is wrong. If you're never told stealing is wrong, how will you know? The license LOOKS clear, so I will have no reason to start pondering it, unless given one.

However, if I DO stop to ponder donation to MUDs, I soon realize that you do indeed get a reward. The MUD stays up, it lags less and can support bigger areas and more people. The difference between this and a token reward is extremely small. However, here's where I'd stop and ponder the license (if I still kept it in mind, which is doubtful) and realize what I do *might* be wrong and that it's probably time to find out exactly what the license allows me to do. Here's the problem, I believe. The license doesn't really deal with this as the authors only seem to foresee two options: free and pay2play/pay4features. The QP/TP you receive for donating to Aardwolf can indeed be retrieved without donation, just by spending some time on it. I even managed to buy a pretitle for 2 TP without donating (If you wonder, it's 'Santa' of course - 'Santa Claws'). This would be $4, btw.
Like someone said, this is a very gray area (as in not good, but not entirely bad either). So it's nice that Aardwolf is trying to move out of it by building anew on socketmud (even though they claim this isn't the reason). I don't see the other people in this forum doing anything about this issue, so I think they (Aardwolf) deserve an applause for taking action.

Now, if what happens to DIKU hurts DIKU II, why on earth haven't the DIKU team written a new license yet? It's quite obvious the old one is lacking.

Disclaimer: I've looked at this from my point of view, as that seem to be physically possible, unlike the lawyer's point of view as I'm not a lawyer and quite frankly don't know how to look out from one. Also, all opinions presented in this text are belong to me (sorry, couldn't resist) and me only. Feel free to share them, though. I won't charge ye. All grammatical errors as well as typos are due to me being a rutabaga (or maybe it was swede? whatever).

Speaking as moderator: Pretty much everything that can be said, has been said. So rather than having to keep going over the same points every time another Aardwolf player comes along, I'm just going to freeze the thread.