29 Apr, 2008, Guest wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
So I got this odd email today from some guy calling himself "The Soulculler" through my blog today. Apparently he's strapped for coders, needs some help with his project, and offered to pay me $50 to do the work for him. He's apparently not asking much. Some stuff to do with emotes, combat, prayers, moods, and banks. All things I'm sure would be easy enough for me to handle. Being currently unemployed, the offer is tempting. But this raises a bit of an issue as his code is a "Duki" derivative. His misspelling, not mine. I'm tempted to think it was a troll or a spam email given the overall tone of the offer. If it was spam, it's been very cleverly targeted to evade the various layers of filtering I have in place.

What I'm more interested in is this. Does paying a coder cause the MUD operator to violate the "no-profit" clause of the Diku license?

My opinion on this is that it doesn't, because the operator is spending money for services. Much like they do when they get the MUD hosted somewhere. There can be no profit if you're losing money. This is assuming the operator is not taking in any revenue of course.

I'm also aware that someone is likely to raise the issue that the coder being paid is likely to be violating the license. But as the license is generally an agreement between the copyright holder and the one running the game, an outside coder hired to work on something doesn't seem like it would be covered to me. If this *IS* a violation of the license, I'd like to see actual case law cites and verifiable source material rather than the usual idle speculation about what the Diku team intended, or what the community in general "feels is right". This is after all the legal issues forum. Not the moral equivalency forum :)

Twisting the term "profit" to mean "benefit gained" doesn't exactly fly either. If this were how profit was intended to be defined, then we're all violators because we're all "gaining benefit" by having people play our games, having builders build us areas, having coders write code, and being allowed to publicly advertise our products on various websites. It's pretty clear to me profit in the license means the monetary kind.
29 Apr, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
But as the license is generally an agreement between the copyright holder and the one running the game, an outside coder hired to work on something doesn't seem like it would be covered to me.


The Diku licence grants permission to copy, modify, distribute, display and perform DikuMUD or parts thereof.

Without agreeing to the licence, how does the coder have permission to modify the Diku code?
29 Apr, 2008, Guest wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Is there any case law to support the contention that a 3rd party hired coder is bound by the license? Or even a 3rd party coder who simply produces snippets that work in Diku MUDs? It seems to be an awfully big stretch to me to accept that someone outside the MUD could be bound by the license which was clearly intended to bind the MUD and not 3rd party contractors.

And suppose someone goes the extra mile and documents an API for this 3rd party coder to use. Giving them all of the information they need to produce code that can be plugged into the Diku MUD, without ever exposing them to the codebase itself?
29 Apr, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
It seems to be an awfully big stretch to me to accept that someone outside the MUD could be bound by the license which was clearly intended to bind the MUD and not 3rd party contractors.


The Diku licence contains the conditions under which you can copy, modify, distribute, display and perform DikuMUD.

If you want to (legally) perform one or more of those activities, the Diku licence is the only thing granting you those rights.

I reiterate: Without agreeing to the licence, how does the coder have permission to modify the Diku code?
29 Apr, 2008, tphegley wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
This guy posted on mudmagic as well. It's not spam, but he must be pretty desperate. To add to the discussion though. I think it's perfectly fine to pay someone to code. You are buying their services and their coding skills. It's a service. You aren't gaining any benefit from it except the new code…which you paid for.

Now the question… Is original code which the coder creates, is that under the diku license?
29 Apr, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
tphegley said:
Now the question… Is original code which the coder creates, is that under the diku license?


Depends on the code. The person in question was asking for things like "a reworking of the emote command" and "a very slight edit to the combat system", and those would likely result in derivative works.

Obviously if you develop your own code independently of Diku, you can do whatever you wish with it. But that's not what we're talking about here.
29 Apr, 2008, Guest wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Samson said:
It seems to be an awfully big stretch to me to accept that someone outside the MUD could be bound by the license which was clearly intended to bind the MUD and not 3rd party contractors.


I reiterate: Without agreeing to the licence, how does the coder have permission to modify the Diku code?


You still haven't provided anything to establish that the coder doing the work would be bound by it to begin with. So why would he need to agree to something that's not relevant to the purchase of his services in order to perform the work? You also ignored the entire scenario wherein the MUD operators provide an API to the coder, who then has no direct access to the Diku codebase. You can't be held bound to a license if you don't even have the codebase in hand to modify. Producing a snippet is an independent act. The ones doing the actual modifying are the MUD's own staff. So I ask again, do you have case law and/or verifiable sources to back up the contention that the coder would be bound by the license?

BTW - Yes that Mudmagic post looks exactly like what was emailed to me.
29 Apr, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
You still haven't provided anything to establish that the coder doing the work would be bound by it to begin with.


What else gives him the right to modify DikuMUD?

Samson said:
You also ignored the entire scenario wherein the MUD operators provide an API to the coder, who then has no direct access to the Diku codebase.


If you don't need to copy, modify, distribute, display or perform any part of DikuMUD, then you don't need to agree to the licence. So given such an API (or more realistically, in the case of codebase-independent snippets) I don't see a problem.

But in this case the individual specifically wants someone to modify a Diku derivative. And the only thing allowing you to do that is the Diku licence.
29 Apr, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
I don't think the license has an opinion about making modifications for hire. You are not after all using any part of the SMAUG work for profit, but instead your expertise in programming. KaVir seems to be saying, rightly IMO, that the resulting work would also fall under the license, but that doesn't mean that the programmer cannot charge to provide such a service, any more than the host cannot charge to "display" the work online.

It is very well established in the software industry, for example, that you can consult on even the most open-source of open-source projects, and that you can consult for the most closed-source of closed-source projects, all of which would normally completely forbid redistribution/modification under certain circumstances.
30 Apr, 2008, Vladaar wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Just do the code changes he wants as snippets and send it to him. Unless he can't install snippets? There was someone offering to sell areas for diku muds on mudconnect awhile back, that claimed he would just send the text file, or something like that. Anyway the majority of people on that issue for area file found that acceptable.

Vladaar
30 Apr, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
As far as I know builders can be paid because more or less areas are text files and from a license aspect unrelated to the DIKU license (original areas that is, obviously not those that are stock). Essentially this is much the same that you can't make money off of Microsoft Word by selling copies of it, but you can sell copies of papers that were created in Microsoft word.
30 Apr, 2008, Guest wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Just as you can sell code you wrote yourself. Regardless of where it's going to end up, even if it's in a Diku derived codebase. The license can't possibly extend to your own work under any sane interpretation I can come up with.
30 Apr, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Fizban said:
As far as I know builders can be paid because more or less areas are text files and from a license aspect unrelated to the DIKU license (original areas that is, obviously not those that are stock).


Right. If you created an area from scratch then (assuming it wasn't based on an existing copyrighted theme such as Star Wars) the copyright would be entirely yours, and you could do whatever you wished with it. But if you were to modify DikuMUD's Midgaard area, you'd be creating a derivative work, and your activities would fall within the scope of the licence (because nothing else gives you permission to modify the area).

The same is true with code. Write a module of code from scratch and you can do whatever you like with it, but modify the Diku code and you'd be creating a derivative work (or a "copy", if the changes weren't sufficient to qualify as a derivative). In this case, the person is specifically asking for minor modifications to the Diku code, not for modules of new code.
30 Apr, 2008, Remcon wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
This has gotten to be a fairly stupid argument, kavir is just repeating the same line (nothing else gives you permission to modify …).

The point is fairly simple no matter how you look at it, the license is something the owner of the mud agrees to when using the code. If the owner isn't making a profit on it in any way and is paying his builders/coders he has that right and they also have the right to accept the cash. The builders never agree to the license when they start building and could charge what they wish for their time. Same goes for a coder. The license was more or less meant to keep people from using the mud to charge players for playing on the game. I could spend all day trying to interpret the license and bend it all sorts of ways, but in the end it would still say exactly what it says, it was left to vague.

You can do what you choose in my opinion, if all else fails have him donate cash for something unrelated and than just do the work because your nice :)
30 Apr, 2008, Runter wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Samson said:
But as the license is generally an agreement between the copyright holder and the one running the game, an outside coder hired to work on something doesn't seem like it would be covered to me.


The Diku licence grants permission to copy, modify, distribute, display and perform DikuMUD or parts thereof.

Without agreeing to the licence, how does the coder have permission to modify the Diku code?



This is pretty silly, actually. If the third party (not the owner) has no acting interest in the profits or day to day operations of the organization, presumably none, then they aren't even bound to the agreement in the first place. That being said, It would be like working for a NPO contracted out to develop a certain software on their systems and having to deal with some of their existing licensing that grants only limited rights. You aren't bound to their agreements directed at the day to day operations even if the agreement explicitly says you are; This does not, anyways.

They don't have the power to bind outside entities to that agreement the same way they can't demand a mud host not make money while hosting the thing. Sure, they could include it in a license, but not only is it unenforceable in every part of the world, it wouldn't be a valid contract. You can put anything you want in an agreement but it doesn't mean it can, should or would be upheld even if the original author intended it that way.
30 Apr, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Remcon said:
This has gotten to be a fairly stupid argument, kavir is just repeating the same line (nothing else gives you permission to modify …).


Because it's a fact that certain people can't seem to grasp, and it renders this discussion pretty much moot. You don't magically gain permission to do whatever you like with copyrighted work just because you know someone who has downloaded a copy of it.

Remcon said:
The builders never agree to the license when they start building and could charge what they wish for their time. Same goes for a coder.


If they don't agree to the licence, then they are not allowed to copy, modify, distribute, display or perform any part of DikuMUD. Those activities are prohibited by law, unless the rights are granted by the copyright holder - which in the case of Diku is by way of the licence.
30 Apr, 2008, KaVir wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Runter said:
They don't have the power to bind outside entities to that agreement the same way they can't demand a mud host not make money while hosting the thing.


If you're modifying the Diku code then you're not an "outside entity". A mud hosting service can sell server space because that space has nothing to do with Diku - but that same hosting service couldn't burn copies of DikuMUD onto CDs and sell them for $5 each, simply because someone else had agreed to the licence - if they want to distribute DikuMUD then they must do so within the scope of the licence.

The same with coding. If you write an independant piece of code then you can do whatever you like with it - but if you want to modify the Diku code, then you need rights that can only be granted by the copyright holder, and therefore must make your modifications within the scope of the licence.
30 Apr, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
You know, licenses don't necessarily apply to individuals, but can also apply to organizations; it is the organization that accepts the license. So it can make perfect sense for the organization to have the code modified. The programmer is naturally bound by the license in that s/he cannot go around distributing it claiming ownership and so on, but it seems very unclear that the third party cannot be paid.

Let's stop focusing on these other questions; in the end of the day there is only one question here. Is it or is it not ok to be paid to do work on the code? No sense going in circles on anything else.
30 Apr, 2008, Asylumius wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
What constitutes modifying DikuMUD? I could probably write code right now that would compile on a stock DikuMUD without looking at or copying from any existing code. Does that count? What if I don't use any DikuMUD specific variables or anything like that? It's unlikely as hell, of course, but say somebody writes some completely MUD-independant C code and some basic directions (ie, apply this code to your who function).



I just don't have a problem with somebody getting paid to code on a DikuMUD. If somebody could present some legal documentation like a previous case, and not just their opinion on how to translate the verbage, I would probably drop it and adhere to that, but nobody has. Under what exact circumstances does writing what kind of code become a violation of the license? Does selling a completely ANSI C date/time function to someone KNOWING they're going to use it on their ROM MUD consistute a no-no? What about of the same code has been wrapped in:



void do_sometime(CHAR_DATA *ch, char *argument) {}



Is it now a violation?



In any court room, you'll find a small divide between the letter of the law and the spirit of it. If anyone can provide an exact quote of the DikuMUD creators saying they don't approve of this practice, fine. If not, I consider this kind of practice to be at least within the spirit of the law/license, if not the letter.

All in all, I agree with pretty much everything Samson said.
30 Apr, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
If not, I consider this kind of practice to be at least within the spirit of the law/license, if not the letter.

I think that this is all that matters in the end of the day, especially in practice, because if it doesn't bother them, they won't sue you for it…
0.0/71