21 Feb, 2011, Vigud wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Is learning C from their stupid errors a profit? Selling DikuMud-related merchandise? Donations?
Can you think of any non-profit organization that does profit "in any possible way"?
If I run a machine to sell useless accounts and to host original DikuMud totally for free at the same time – do I "make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way"?

It seems to me that, due to poor wording used in the license, it is possible to act against their intentions and conform to their license, and vice versa.
21 Feb, 2011, Runter wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Vigud said:
Is learning C from their stupid errors a profit? Selling DikuMud-related merchandise? Donations?
Can you think of any non-profit organization that does profit "in any possible way"?
If I run a machine to sell useless accounts and to host original DikuMud totally for free at the same time – do I "make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way"?

It seems to me that, due to poor wording used in the license, it is possible to act against their intentions and conform to their license, and vice versa.


FWIW there's a difference in the definition of getting profit and the legalities associated with an NPO. You'd indeed profit in the sense that you get to run something without paying for the costs associated with running something. I think my previous post still rings true. If you don't like it, don't use the codebase. There's plenty of (imo) better codebases with very liberal licensing available.
21 Feb, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Vigud said:
Is learning C from their stupid errors a profit? Selling DikuMud-related merchandise? Donations?
Can you think of any non-profit organization that does profit "in any possible way"?
If I run a machine to sell useless accounts and to host original DikuMud totally for free at the same time – do I "make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way"?

It seems to me that, due to poor wording used in the license, it is possible to act against their intentions and conform to their license, and vice versa.


FWIW there's a difference in the definition of getting profit and the legalities associated with an NPO. You'd indeed profit in the sense that you get to run something without paying for the costs associated with running something. I think my previous post still rings true. If you don't like it, don't use the codebase. There's plenty of (imo) better codebases with very liberal licensing available.


QFT - both posters.

Clearly, the tone of the DikuMUD license is designed to dissuade anyone from making the codebase part of a commercial server enterprise. Since the license does not specify *any* acceptable ways to monetize, the clear implication is that you need to be paying for server maintenance costs, etc. by other means. In the terms set by the license, donations are a profit first, and it doesn't matter to what end they are used.

I'm pretty sure that many MUDs are not in full compliance with this overly restrictive clause. All I know is I'm not going to blow any whistles about it, especially if donations are used for maintenance costs only.

If I were starting a new project, I'd definitely look past DikuMUD based on the license alone, even if my goal was an entirely free-to-play, but self-funded, game server.
21 Feb, 2011, Vigud wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Vigud said:
If I run a machine to sell useless accounts and to host original DikuMud totally for free at the same time – do I "make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way"?
You'd indeed profit in the sense that you get to run something without paying for the costs associated with running something.
I don't see how it would be violating the license. I know for a fact that many Diku-based muds run on servers kindly provided for free by Internet Service Providers – how would my example differ from that? Maybe I should clarify, that - in my example - the mud players wouldn't have to pay for anything and buying a useless account would be kind of indirect donation.
21 Feb, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
'Net income is one possible way, regardless of how you use the money. '
To have a net income should you not have the ability to spend less than you gain ?
I am gueninely asking english langage is not my native one, and the forte of my native one being french is to use word that only have one meaning in legal stuff. (ben then again the forte is also to make a lot of laws thatcannot be followed in the same time)
21 Feb, 2011, Ssolvarain wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
To have a net income should you not have the ability to spend less than you gain ?


That sounds more like the thinking of a commercial enterprise counting beans, not a mud hobbyist setting aside $10-20 from his <insert menial task here> job each month.
21 Feb, 2011, Runter wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Vigud said:
Runter said:
Vigud said:
If I run a machine to sell useless accounts and to host original DikuMud totally for free at the same time – do I "make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way"?
You'd indeed profit in the sense that you get to run something without paying for the costs associated with running something.
I don't see how it would be violating the license. I know for a fact that many Diku-based muds run on servers kindly provided for free by Internet Service Providers – how would my example differ from that? Maybe I should clarify, that - in my example - the mud players wouldn't have to pay for anything and buying a useless account would be kind of indirect donation.


That's obviously not the part I was responding to. How about:

Quote
Can you think of any non-profit organization that does profit "in any possible way"?


Frankly, what it sounds like you're wanting to do is angle shoot to justify breaking the license. If there's any association between the people giving you money "unrelated" and the people playing your game it's a clear violation. I.e. "You guys pay me but claim it's for something else like an account on my server when it's really a contribution related to the game I'm running. But we'll just say that to get around the license." If you could do that then any license restricting profit could do the same thing without violating the license.

On the other hand, if it was unrelated then it wouldn't be breaking the license, but making up fantasy about the real relationship of transfer of money is classically how fraud is committed.
21 Feb, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Plamzi said:
Since the license does not specify *any* acceptable ways to monetize, the clear implication is that you need to be paying for server maintenance costs, etc. by other means.

Are you sure? What legal basis are you using to conclude that only methods specified are acceptable, as opposed to only methods explicitly barred are unacceptable? This kind of claim is very specific legally and I don't think people should use intuition based on "clear implication" – the clear implication to one person might be very different from somebody else's clear implication.
21 Feb, 2011, Asylumius wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
Until a real, bonafide copyright lawyer interprets the DIKU license (or even better, a judge rules on it), we're simply not going to know, in truth, what is and is not okay.

Until the original authors come out and say, "Hey, this is what WE MEANT and what we would want…" we're simply not going to know what was intended, regardless of how anyone interprets it.

So can we all just give it a fucking rest, please, in 2011?

Hell, let's change the subject to gay marriage, abortion, or even one of Samson's crazy conspiracy theories. Let it go. Just let it go folks.
21 Feb, 2011, Runter wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Needing a bonafide copyright lawyer to figure out if you're going to be able to use diku for your hobby game is YA reason not to use diku if you can't err on the side of following the license completely.

Also:

Quote
Until a real copyright / IP lawyer sits me down and explains it to me in person, I'm going to base my opinions on the spirit of the license, which in my opinion, is that donations are okay as long as they aren't used to thinly veil the purchasing of equipment, levels, etc.


So it's okay to receive money according to the license as long as there's no in game perks? Maybe those sales of in game items were to only pay for server costs. It seems to be the same exact violation to me.
21 Feb, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
Until the original authors come out and say, "Hey, this is what WE MEANT and what we would want…" we're simply not going to know what was intended, regardless of how anyone interprets it.


I thought they had.
21 Feb, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
Until the original authors come out and say, "Hey, this is what WE MEANT and what we would want…" we're simply not going to know what was intended, regardless of how anyone interprets it.

"It is the intention of the license agreement that you should not receive for donations".
– Michael Seifert


"I feel it is important that i make clear how i see the limits of the licence; You should know i am not against donations as such, and he may sell his merchandise as he pleases, but he may not use the game directly for this. The way i usually define this is if the players get some tangible modification within the game for their donations. Then it becomes commercialized. They pay for a service that is within the game.

I have no wish, nor any legal background for stopping donations made from commercials on the website, that offer no compensation game-wise. Nor have i any wish for preventing people selling merchandise on their website, that is related to the game (titled tshirts, mousepads etc..) .. in fact i recommend that you get your money this way."

– Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt
22 Feb, 2011, Asylumius wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Granted, I'd hadn't seen that stuff, but that's not the point.

I'm not violating the DIKU license or making an argument for why I/you should.

My point is: if this crap is out there, and apparently it is, then let the fucking topic die, forever.
22 Feb, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
Granted, I'd hadn't seen that stuff, but that's not the point.

I'm not violating the DIKU license or making an argument for why I/you should.

My point is: if this crap is out there, and apparently it is, then let the fucking topic die, forever.


But you keep replying!
22 Feb, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
Granted, I'd hadn't seen that stuff, but that's not the point.

Actually it is. You claimed we don't know the Diku team's intent, when clearly that's not true.

If you're not interested in this subject, then the appropriate response is to not read the thread. If you post incorrect information, it'll be challenged. If you want to control what people post, then you'll need to start up your own forums.
22 Feb, 2011, Asylumius wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
My point isn't that that we don't know, it's that further argument over it is pointless given the information at hand.

The horse is sufficiently beaten, and threads like this just turn into carbon copies of the same conversations that have been had before.

I'll take your advice though and quit talking about it since that's exactly that I wish everyone else would do.

A kindly f*ck you to you too, sir.
22 Feb, 2011, Cratylus wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
My point isn't that that we don't know, it's that further argument over it is pointless given the information at hand.

The horse is sufficiently beaten, and threads like this just turn into carbon copies of the same conversations that have been had before.

I'll take your advice though and quit talking about it since that's exactly that I wish everyone else would do.

A kindly f*ck you to you too, sir.


You did it again!

It's like catnip I swear.
22 Feb, 2011, Tyche wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Can I sell shares in a hedge fund based on Diku derivatives?
22 Feb, 2011, Runter wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
I think this topic never dies is because there's an endless number of people who revive it trying to add their own nuance to how they can break the license (and at least we can agree on the intent of the license). When the simple answer is if you're running a game using this code you can't generate money for any purpose using the game or affiliation with the game as a platform. Not if you want to follow the license. That extends to "donations" only made to self fund the game. That extends to NPOs using the codebase. You can't use the codebase to raise money for a good cause. Yes, the license is draconian. It's a shame if you're planning to monetize your game, but the clear answer is use something else. Or self fund and never monetize.
22 Feb, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
Yes, the license is draconian.

It's also unclear if it can actually enforce the claims it makes. But, well, we'll never know until this goes to court, ne?

I think the topic keeps coming up because people like to slam other people for Being Evil and violating licenses…
20.0/254