03 Mar, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 81st comment:
Votes: 0
'It all doesn't matter. You don't have the sources -> you download them -> you have the sources. It means that you gained them and that's a profit. '
Then by your own logic, you cannot dowload it….as you would make a profit of it…funny…let see where this funny troll will lead us…
03 Mar, 2011, Vigud wrote in the 82nd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Then by your own logic, you cannot dowload it.
That's exactly my point. I'm not trolling, I'm just taking the "gain argument" to the absurd to show that it's invalid. So, in my opinion, it's either that you're not allowed to possess any copy of the sources, or we could agree that "profit in any possible way" means collecting money.
03 Mar, 2011, oenone wrote in the 83rd comment:
Votes: 0
The Diku license was definitely not made by a lawyer…
03 Mar, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 84th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
Poor old horse, getting beaten again so many years after it died… :(

Because there are always more newbies looking for an easy buck.

quixadhal said:
Keep it simple. If you want money, get it from some source that doesn't involve your DikuMUD derivative. Banner ads, wet T-shirt contests, whatever. If you don't want to do anything outside the game, but still want to collect money, pick some other driver. It's not that hard.

It's not that hard, and the Diku team have even recommended such methods for collecting money (well not explicitly wet t-shirt contests, but out-of-game stuff in general), so I doubt anyone would suggest it was against the licence except as part of a strawman argument, or for general trolling.

"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


quixadhal said:
If you absolutely must have the DikuMUD experience AND collect money AND not do anything outside your game, time to take all the energy being spent arguing armchair legalities and use it to write a DikuMUD-alike from scratch. Almost 20 years have gone by, and nobody has YET accomplished that.

My personal observation: Those who wish to commercially exploit DikuMUD never seem to have the necessary skill and drive to develop a mud from scratch. And those capable of developing a mud from scratch always seem to have their own vision, and have little interest in creating a DikuMUD clone.

But even if someone were to create a DikuMUD clone from scratch, that doesn't necessarily mean they'd release it for other people to use. Considering how little respect many developers show for DikuMUD and its licence, it wouldn't surprise me at all if such a codebase remained closed source. And even if it were released, that doesn't mean others would want to use it - most DikuMUDs these days are based on more modern derivatives, and most players who want to start up their own mud will pick the same codebase as their "home" mud.
03 Mar, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 85th comment:
Votes: 0
Vigud said:
Quote
Then by your own logic, you cannot dowload it.
That's exactly my point. I'm not trolling, I'm just taking the "gain argument" to the absurd to show that it's invalid. So, in my opinion, it's either that you're not allowed to possess any copy of the sources, or we could agree that "profit in any possible way" means collecting money.


"Profit" has a definition (see above) and that definition does not include downloading the source code itself, period. "Profit" also doesn't include gains like learning to code better, etc. "Profit" is money you get over and above the money you spend. You spent nothing to get the Diku codebase, so any money you make directly from it is "profit". I think that's very straightforward and no amount of verbal sophistry will exempt you from it.

As I think I've shown in my previous post, the argument that donations are not a profit falls apart very easily. E. g., you can say "I'm going to host my MUD with the most expensive provider, and I'm going to pay myself a six-figure salary for investing thousands of hours into the game. And, I'm going to sell items in-game to break even. Because I break even, there is no profit." That's fallacious, because the Diku codebase does not require you to do any of these things–i. e. you can host it for free and modify it for free, like most of us do.

oenone said:
The Diku license was definitely not made by a lawyer…


It does not matter in the slightest whether the Diku license was drafted by a lawyer, a coder, or a drugged-up ladybug on a Sunday morning. You step into a binding arrangement when you decide to download the codebase, and not when the license is drafted by someone you think should have written it. Both the text and the intention of the license are exceedingly clear, and any lawyer worth their salt would be able to show clearly the difference between making profit off the code itself (e. g. "Please donate so I can keep this server up") vs. a T-Shirt with your MUD's name on it.

it's also clear to me that were anyone to enforce the license en masse, a lot of MUDs may find themselves in trouble. That's never going to happen. It's up to us, the community, and to each of us as individuals, to decide to what extent to honor the Diku license.

This and other threads have shown time and again that the extent to which people honor the license can vary greatly. Rationalizations of why it's OK to do what you're already doing are easy to come by (through no fault of the license wording itself).

I'm OK with most slight violations of the license by others, e. g. taking donations for server maintenance costs, but would definitely raise a hand if someone is selling items and buffs for real cash.
03 Mar, 2011, Runter wrote in the 86th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, I think, unfortunately, the enforceability aspect is what makes blatantly breaking the license over the years by some tenable. It's really only a small leap from accepting money at all to accepting money to be able to work on the game full time. And from there it's just a small leap from full commercialization. Under the facade of "we rewrote the game 100%." I think that's been the progression of classic license infringement of this sort.
03 Mar, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 87th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
It does not matter in the slightest whether the Diku license was drafted by a lawyer, a coder, or a drugged-up ladybug on a Sunday morning. You step into a binding arrangement when you decide to download the codebase, and not when the license is drafted by someone you think should have written it.

No. A "binding arrangement" cannot bind you to do or not do things that the law does not allow for.

plamzi said:
any lawyer worth their salt would be able to show clearly the difference between making profit off the code itself (e. g. "Please donate so I can keep this server up") vs. a T-Shirt with your MUD's name on it.

How is the t-shirt not making money off of the brand constructed around the "code itself"?
03 Mar, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 88th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
No. A "binding arrangement" cannot bind you to do or not do things that the law does not allow for.


You may know something we don't. Can you point us to a passage in the copyright law which bars authors from specifying how their work is and is not to be used? I'd be very surprised to see that but maybe I don't know everything.

David Haley said:
plamzi said:
any lawyer worth their salt would be able to show clearly the difference between making profit off the code itself (e. g. "Please donate so I can keep this server up") vs. a T-Shirt with your MUD's name on it.

How is the t-shirt not making money off of the brand constructed around the "code itself"?


I'm sure you're just being disingenuous but for the sake of others, the litmus test is pretty simple: "Does a t-shirt with your MUD's name require the DikuMUD code in order to exist?" If the t-shirt doesn't dissolve when your MUD server goes down, then the answer would be 'No' and you are free to sell it for profit. The same applies to MUD websites with ads on them. So, unsurprisingly, the authors cite those as acceptable sources of revenue.

It's all in the license, for those who are not doing mental gymnastics while reading the actual text.
03 Mar, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 89th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
I'm sure you're just being disingenuous



You know what, forget it. I'm not sure why I should continue talking to you if this is what you consider a reasonable thing to say. You think that it's impossible for me to disagree with you without being disingenuous? Oooookkkkkk, dude.
03 Mar, 2011, Ssolvarain wrote in the 90th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
How is the t-shirt not making money off of the brand constructed around the "code itself"?


Because the tshirt isn't printed with diku code?
03 Mar, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 91st comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
plamzi said:
I'm sure you're just being disingenuous



You know what, forget it. I'm not sure why I should continue talking to you if this is what you consider a reasonable thing to say. You think that it's impossible for me to disagree with you without being disingenuous? Oooookkkkkk, dude.


No need to get offended–au contraire. What I meant was that you strike me as a very intelligent person and so I assumed that you see how a t-shirt with something written on it is *indirectly* connected to a game server's codebase while the server itself is *directly* connected to its codebase. My assumption is clearly wrong, because I still think you are an intelligent person, yet you didn't mean your comments ironically, and you don't seem to see a difference.

That's all fine. But I still think the difference is painfully obvious.
03 Mar, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 92nd comment:
Votes: 0
Ssol said:
Because the tshirt isn't printed with diku code?

No, it's not. What about the Paypal button to take donations?

plamzi said:
No need to get offended–au contraire. What I meant was that you strike me as a very intelligent person and so I assumed that you see how a t-shirt with something written on it is *indirectly* connected to a game server's codebase while the server itself is *directly* connected to its codebase. My assumption is clearly wrong, because I still think you are an intelligent person, yet you didn't mean your comments ironically, and you don't seem to see a difference.

Thank you for clarifying what you were saying. As a general note, I was not trying to be ironic and when I am I try to make it fairly clear.

Anyhow, regarding direct vs. indirect: well, yes – sort of. But we were talking about making separate donations, outside of the game, without impact on the game. We weren't talking about doing something directly within the game.

As a side note, selling branded merchandise seems like a far better way to "profit" than asking for donations.

The branded merchandise would be valueless (or at the very least less valuable) if there were no brand established in the first place, and that brand is established through the game itself. Similarly there would be no donations if people did not find it worthwhile to assist the game itself.

What is the difference between a donation and a t-shirt purchase? Both involve giving money to the people who run the game because you like the game. The only difference really is that in the latter case you get something in return.

If you think that the difference here is painfully obvious, such that there is some fundamental difference in the character of why money is being given, perhaps you could clarify that. It's not at all obvious to me why selling t-shirts would be completely fine and taking donations would not be. (This is beyond what Hans-Henrik has said anyhow, making the discussion moot.)
03 Mar, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 93rd comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
What is the difference between a donation and a t-shirt purchase? Both involve giving money to the people who run the game because you like the game. The only difference really is that in the latter case you get something in return.

If you think that the difference here is painfully obvious, such that there is some fundamental difference in the character of why money is being given, perhaps you could clarify that. It's not at all obvious to me why selling t-shirts would be completely fine and taking donations would not be. (This is beyond what Hans-Henrik has said anyhow, making the discussion moot.)


The key thing about donations is how you use the proceeds, and in my earlier posts I meant specifically donations used for server maintenance. The DikuMUD license can't prevent you from soliciting donations if you use the proceeds to maintain a MUD-related website, e. g. But the moment you use donations to pay for something directly connected to the server, you enter perilous grounds. That is because at that point it can be shown that you're making a profit directly from the codebase (or, as Runter argued first in this thread, that you get to run a DikuMUD server for free on a commercial host).

Again, the test is simple. Remove the DikuMUD codebase from the picture and observe the effects: Can you solicit donations to maintain your MUD's website? Yes–your site runs without the codebase. Can you solicit donations to help offset server hosting costs? No–your server doesn't run without the codebase.

And yes, I'm well aware that what people say donations are for and how they actually use the proceeds is based on the honor system. But if we had a court precedent, the simple question on which the case would hinge would have been 'After all is said and done, how were the donation proceeds actually used?'
03 Mar, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 94th comment:
Votes: 0
plamzi said:
The key thing about donations is how you use the proceeds

Why does how I use the money matter for donations but not profit from selling t-shirts?

plamzi said:
But the moment you use donations to pay for something directly connected to the server, you enter perilous grounds. That is because at that point it can be shown that you're making a profit directly from the codebase (or, as Runter argued first in this thread, that you get to run a DikuMUD server for free on a commercial host).

I just don't see how you draw this conclusion. How is the entire brand surrounding your game truly that disconnected from asking for money to support that very brand?

plamzi said:
Again, the test is simple. Remove the DikuMUD codebase from the picture and observe the effects: Can you solicit donations to maintain your MUD's website? Yes–your site runs without the codebase. Can you solicit donations to help offset server hosting costs? No–your server doesn't run without the codebase.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the question, to be honest. I can always solicit donations, for whatever reason. Hey guys, give me money to help do the stuff I need to do around this game, and maybe get some beer money too.

I'd expect the question to be whether or not I'm taking money, not what I choose to do with that money. Whether I use it to buy cookies, beer or hosted VMs somewhere is irrelevant.
03 Mar, 2011, Ssolvarain wrote in the 95th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
How is the entire brand surrounding your game truly that disconnected from asking for money to support that very brand?


The underlying assumption you're making is that the DIKU team owns everything related to your mud, up to and including themes and areas.
03 Mar, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 96th comment:
Votes: 0
Ssolvarain said:
David Haley said:
How is the entire brand surrounding your game truly that disconnected from asking for money to support that very brand?


The underlying assumption you're making is that the DIKU team owns everything related to your mud, up to and including themes and areas.

I'm not entirely sure I follow your response here…
03 Mar, 2011, Runter wrote in the 97th comment:
Votes: 0
If you own a server it's no problem accepting donations (or charging loads) regardless of what license code is ran on the server. The problem may exist if you're generating money using the brand built upon a restrictive license.

Quote
I'm not sure what this has to do with the question, to be honest. I can always solicit donations, for whatever reason. Hey guys, give me money to help do the stuff I need to do around this game, and maybe get some beer money too.


This is a fair point. I think I'd also mention that it's perfectly reasonable for a paid professional to deal with code on the behalf of a client which may be licensed in any way. I think the "test", if there were to be such a thing, would be if the money is generated through a brand built upon the code using the license in question.
03 Mar, 2011, Dutch wrote in the 98th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Again, the test is simple. Remove the DikuMUD codebase from the picture and observe the effects: Can you solicit donations to maintain your MUD's website? Yes–your site runs without the codebase. Can you solicit donations to help offset server hosting costs? No–your server doesn't run without the codebase


Really? My server doesn't run w/o the/a codebase?
I think that brings up a whole new topic for argument. Is the server used solely for a dikumud codebase? What if I'm hosting websites, running multiple codebases(which are not diku), or need the server up for dev?
In this case I think you could get away with soliciting donations to offset server costs any day of the week.

And what if your codebase(diku) is tied into your website? hmm.

Just my 2 cents.
03 Mar, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 99th comment:
Votes: 0
Ruuunnnnttteeerrrr. Fix that from 'code' to 'quote'. :stare:
03 Mar, 2011, plamzi wrote in the 100th comment:
Votes: 0
Dutch said:
Quote
Again, the test is simple. Remove the DikuMUD codebase from the picture and observe the effects: Can you solicit donations to maintain your MUD's website? Yes–your site runs without the codebase. Can you solicit donations to help offset server hosting costs? No–your server doesn't run without the codebase


Really? My server doesn't run w/o the/a codebase?
I think that brings up a whole new topic for argument. Is the server used solely for a dikumud codebase? What if I'm hosting websites, running multiple codebases(which are not diku), or need the server up for dev?
In this case I think you could get away with soliciting donations to offset server costs any day of the week.

And what if your codebase(diku) is tied into your website? hmm.

Just my 2 cents.


At the time when you spend your donation proceeds, it would be easy to judge whether you've violated the license. Did you ask for donations, some or all of which went to support a game server based on DikuMUD? If the answer is yes, then you violated the license.

If you asked for donations to support general server costs, without advertising the fact that some of the proceeds would go towards hosting a DikuMUD server, then all you did was obfuscate the violation a little bit.
80.0/254