21 Oct, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Noplex said:
The key here it specifically says profit.


The full statement says "You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way". There are different "possibly ways" of defining profit, including "advantage; benefit; gain". Technically that clause makes Diku pretty much unusable, so it's actually very fortunate that the Diku team have clarified their intent.

DavidHaley said:
My position is that it's unclear what exactly the license is allowed to demand of you. There are some things that are not legal to put into contracts.


We've been over this before. The Diku licence is not a contract.

DavidHaley said:
For instance, I find it very dubious that they could require you to not accept donations. I'm not sure they can even prevent you from making money selling the time you spent building the game.


Many licences have such restrictions. For example:

LICENSE TERMS FOR THE WORKS YOU CREATE USING BORLAND DELPHI PERSONAL VERSION 6

You may not use the Software for any commercial, business, governmental or institutional purpose of any kind ("Noncommercial Purposes"). Borland grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to install and use the Software for the sole purposes of designing, developing and running, in source and compiled form, the works which you create for your own personal Noncommercial Purposes, using the Software ("Works"), subject to the restrictions in this License Agreement. You may distribute your Works to others. You may not receive any direct or indirect compensation for the distribution or use of your Works.
21 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
We've been over this before. The Diku licence is not a contract.

I am sorry, but you are wrong. A license is a contract between the licensor and the licensee. Don't just believe me: ask a lawyer, or look it up for yourself. There are plenty more sources you can look at if you feel enterprising enough.

I quote:
Quote
A software license agreement is a memorandum of contract between a producer and a user of computer software which grants the user a software license.


:shrug:

KaVir said:
Many licences have such restrictions. For example:

As I said, there are some things that are legal to put in contracts, and others that are not. Just because a contract says something doesn't mean it is legally binding. Again, go ask a lawyer.
21 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Furthermore, it doesn't matter: the point is still that some things cannot be required in a license or contract. Just because a clause exists in a license/contract/whatever doesn't mean you could actually enforce it.

For some more thoughts on this, you might want to check out this section as a starting point for more research.
21 Oct, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
KaVir said:
We've been over this before. The Diku licence is not a contract.

I am sorry, but you are wrong. A license is a contract between the licensor and the licensee.


Wrong. For example: The GPL Is a License, not a Contract

"A lot of the confusion about the GPL stems from this central issue: Is the GPL a license or a contract? The reason this issue matters is that contracts are enforced under contract law, which is done state by state, and there are certain necessary elements to qualify as a valid contract. Licenses, instead, are enforced under copyright law at the federal level. The penalties available are not the same."


And here's another good article, this one by Eben Moglen (professor of law and legal history at Columbia University, and founder, Director-Counsel and Chairman of Software Freedom Law Center):

http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publicat...

"The essence of copyright law, like other systems of property rules, is the power to exclude. The copyright holder is legally empowered to exclude all others from copying, distributing, and making derivative works.

This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license–that is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden. Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits."
21 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
I could continue citing documents (such as recent case law in which license violation was found to be contract breach – or even footnotes from the Groklaw article you cite) or IP lawyers of whom I have explicitly asked this question but I don't see the point in bickering over something that doesn't matter (an interesting read, btw.) (Incidentally, you chose to cite two GPL articles, not something about licenses in general.) The case law is what really matters, in any case.

Even so, putting aside the case law in which judges found license violation to be a breach of contract, I note that you chose to focus on a detail, not the point. :shrug: To repeat it, just because a license/contract says something doesn't mean they are allowed to enforce it.
21 Oct, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I could continue citing documents (such as recent case law in which license violation was found to be contract breach


No, it was a case in which the court found a specific licence (the Artistic License) to also be a contract. And from your own link, the Lawyer Mark Radcliffe is quoted as saying "I believe that this decision is simply wrong."

DavidHaley said:
To repeat it, just because a license/contract says something doesn't mean they are allowed to enforce it.


Commercial restrictions are well within the rights of the copyright holder - and as the licence is the only thing permitting you to use that software, it's not as though you've any other options.

If you're not going to follow the Diku licence, then at least have the balls to follow Noplex's example and admit outright that you're an asshole who doesn't care about other peoples rights. All this attempt at self-justification honestly makes me sick.
21 Oct, 2007, Noplex wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
If you're not going to follow the Diku licence, then at least have the balls to follow Noplex's example and admit outright that you're an asshole who doesn't care about other peoples rights. All this attempt at self-justification honestly makes me sick.

I care about people's rights. I wouldn't use the game (or the services that the players are paying for) for any for-profit ventures. Honestly, I would never have a game that got to that point anyway. But my point is: if I was ever in the position of needing to take down the game or choose between potentially breaking the Diku license by charging people a mediocre amount of money per month, I would choose the latter. Because if I had a game that was ever that popular, honestly, I would honor the people's right that are playing it (and working on it) over the guys that haven't touched the game in nearly twenty years.

Also, note, this wouldn't happen unless I exhausted all possible outlets of free hosting. If a game that is that popular you could most definitely get free hosting, somehow, someway. I don't believe in accepting money for anything in-game (items, etc) for any game not just Diku-derived MUDs. Its a little different when you are hosting an event outside of the game, even though its related.
21 Oct, 2007, Guest wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Commercial restrictions are well within the rights of the copyright holder - and as the licence is the only thing permitting you to use that software, it's not as though you've any other options.


The Diku license prohibits profit. It's pretty explicit about that, and reasonable people will take that to mean monetary profit. So your options are to either operate at a loss, or break even, while still bringing in revenue.

There's also the option of openly defying the license as Mercthievia has done. So far even they haven't suffered any consequences, because while it may be a violation of the license and we may all say it sucks and Vryce is an evil bastard, only the Diku team ( and the Merc team ) have any standing to pursue legal recourse. The rest of us can just sit here on the sidelines and cry foul.

We could of course discuss the more interesting aspects, like does the license restrict what you do with your own creations. Does it even apply if you decide to charge people to access custom areas? Does a 15 year old badly worded license have any affect on your custom code you added to the game?

When all this gets tested in court and precedent is created then we'll have something concrete to point to instead of speculation and conjecture.
21 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
No, it was a case in which the court found a specific licence (the Artistic License) to also be a contract.

Yes, and it establishes precedence for licenses being considered as contracts.

KaVir said:
And from your own link, the Lawyer Mark Radcliffe is quoted as saying "I believe that this decision is simply wrong."

Yes, well, lawyers don't make the law. I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers who will tell you that they believe the decision was simply right. So what?

KaVir said:
If you're not going to follow the Diku licence, then at least have the balls to follow Noplex's example and admit outright that you're an asshole who doesn't care about other peoples rights. All this attempt at self-justification honestly makes me sick.

If you're not going to be civil about this I see no need to continue this discussion with you. I feel no need to get into personal insults and baseless claims about whether or not I care about other people's rights and implied accusations about being some kind of evil monster.
22 Oct, 2007, Guest wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
If you're not going to follow the Diku licence, then at least have the balls to follow Noplex's example and admit outright that you're an asshole who doesn't care about other peoples rights. All this attempt at self-justification honestly makes me sick.


I certainly hope you got that out of your system. Disagreement and heated debate is one thing, but blatant personal attacks are quite another.
22 Oct, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
Disagreement and heated debate is one thing, but blatant personal attacks are quite another.


I'm not going to sugar-coat the truth. If there's one thing I dislike more than people who infringe other peoples copyrights, its those who then try to justify their "right" to do so. These exact same issues have been brought up and refuted repeatedly, yet every so often some newbie comes along and tries the same tired old excuses and fictional lawyer quotes.

Anyway, it's another page for my "Reasons not to release any more work back into the mud community" favourites folder.
22 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir, if somebody tries to enforce a restriction on me that they have no right to enforce to begin with, then applying your argument would lead to the conclusion that they are in fact the ones trying to flout my rights. I normally wouldn't use such high-brow moral terms for things such as this but hey, it's your argument.

KaVir said:
fictional lawyer quotes.

Yay, more ad hominem! I was already an asshole without any balls, and now I'm a liar, too. (Or, I am delusional and make up these discussions I've had; take your pick.) Oh, and there was an implication about being some kind of evil monster due to not having any care for people's rights. I should start a collection! :rolleyes:
23 Oct, 2007, Tyche wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Noplex said:
I would honor the people's right that are playing it (and working on it)…


I'm curious. From what does this "people's right to play" doctrine emanate? If neither encroachments on or theft of property is sufficient to balance "people's right to play", then where do you draw the line?

DavidHaley said:
KaVir, if somebody tries to enforce a restriction on me that they have no right to enforce to begin with…


Are you suggesting that authors have no rights to enforce non-commercial use restrictions? Doesn't that make your license with your string library (or whatever it was…can't remember) invalid?
23 Oct, 2007, Guest wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Samson said:
Disagreement and heated debate is one thing, but blatant personal attacks are quite another.


I'm not going to sugar-coat the truth. If there's one thing I dislike more than people who infringe other peoples copyrights, its those who then try to justify their "right" to do so. These exact same issues have been brought up and refuted repeatedly, yet every so often some newbie comes along and tries the same tired old excuses and fictional lawyer quotes.

Anyway, it's another page for my "Reasons not to release any more work back into the mud community" favourites folder.


I wasn't talking about saying he didn't care about other peoples' rights, I was specifically talking about calling him an asshole. I think we've had enough of that sort of thing going around lately.

Had you said this:

Quote
If you're not going to follow the Diku licence, then at least have the balls to follow Noplex's example and admit outright that you don't care about other peoples rights. All this attempt at self-justification honestly makes me sick.


I wouldn't have said a word about it.
23 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
DavidHaley said:
KaVir, if somebody tries to enforce a restriction on me that they have no right to enforce to begin with…


Are you suggesting that authors have no rights to enforce non-commercial use restrictions? Doesn't that make your license with your string library (or whatever it was…can't remember) invalid?

That is a very good question. I will probably have to clarify my usage of the term 'commercial'. For now, at least, it is not the same situation as the Diku license. Diku does more than restrict commercial use. For example, I place no restrictions on things like accepting donations. I place restrictions on the sale of the source code and (by extension I suppose) binaries compiled therefrom. I do not (intend to) restrict the sale of services around the software. I'll agree, though, that that might not be clear from the term "commercial project", so I'll probably have to change the license to clarify my intention. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

And heck, maybe it isn't legal either to prevent the sale of the source code. If so, I'd be quite happy to be corrected. (That said, there are other licenses that make such restrictions, whereas there are relatively few that are quite as draconion as Diku's.)
(Perhaps worth noting is that if I am corrected on this point, the Diku license is simply way out…)
23 Oct, 2007, Fizban wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm really getting sick of your idiotic drivel. It is definitely legal to limit the sale of source code. In fact it is legal to limit just about anything relating to any software written by you. If I put out a MUD codebase that said only people that scanned their Licenbse emailed it me and had their last name start with a L could use my codebase I'd legally be in my right to sue Susie Brown for using my codebase.
23 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
:stare:

No comment.
23 Oct, 2007, Cratylus wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
I'd legally be in my right to sue Susie Brown for using my codebase


You're legally in your right to sue anyone for any reason. Though some
folks hate it, unfettered access to the courts is a cornerstone of the
American judicial system, and it's what keeps people who are otherwise
ethically impaired in line with society. That and police officers.

DavidHaley seems to be struggling under a failure to experience the
many years of license debate we all have had the privilege to live.

We have a very specific consensus as to how mud licensing works,
and some folks simply have not yet achieved the level of advanced
licensing pedantry we've all earned. I don't think that lacking our
knowledge of these details warrants calls of assholery and drivelmongering.

Jeepers…what is this, TMC alla sudden?*

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

*That was a joke. Haha. Fat Chance.
23 Oct, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
For what it's worth, and I should duck for cover after saying this, a community consensus on how the license works isn't quite the same thing as what the actual legal standing is. Only judges can decide that in court when one party sues the other, not a bunch of dudes, even if they were lawyers.
23 Oct, 2007, Guest wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
You're legally in your right to sue anyone for any reason.


This statement is not entirely accurate, even in the US system. Though it often seems this way. There is a such thing as a frivolous lawsuit. I can't sue you, for example, for being a jerk on the forum. The case would get dismissed and I'd likely be facing fines and court costs for having wasted everyone's time. Even if I were right.

Cratylus said:
I don't think that lacking our knowledge of these details warrants calls of assholery and drivelmongering.


I'm glad to see at least someone agrees that it has no place in the debate.

Now I'm probably going to get branded with the same iron you're firing up for David here, but he's right. Until someone sues, takes a case to court, gets it passed the judge's smell test, and manages to win damages of some sort, the issue of what the license can and can't do to you is entirely speculative. Community pressure has no legal weight, even though it's usually far more distressing to the offender than an actual ruling in court against them.

That being said, the author of a work has sole discretion on what others are allowed to do with it. So if the Diku team has said people who call themselves Samson and use iguana heads as their forum avatars are barred from using the code, well, then I'd be screwed.
20.0/88