By that definition, Rarva, nothing is a profit… so clearly, that definition can't be quite right. :smile:

If you're talking about the expenses that offset revenue in order to establish profit, I think that you can only reasonably consider those expenses that directly relate to the revenue-generating activity. For example, if I have to spend money to run the service that allows me to collect money, I can count that against revenue to determine profit. But if I get money and then spend it on a vacation, I profited and chose to use my profits.

This is wrong thinking.

This is the kind of reasoning that leads emo admins to wring their hands and
weep about how they're altruistically running a mud and nobody appreciates
the sweat they selflessly pour out…implying that their ascetic sacrifice
in the service of others justifies anything they do.

You run a mud for you because it pleases you. When other people show up,
that pleases you. It might please them too, but let's not pretend that
your hobby is an exercise in uninterested self-denial. You're enjoying a
hobby and would like to have other people pay for it. That's fine, I would
like that too. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by trying to
wrap it in a perfectly transparent and disingenuous veneer of philanthropy.



I'm pretty sure they were trying to anticipate the kind of greedy
rules-lawyering that we are seeing now. They clearly felt that people
would try to get around their wishes by doing sneaky stuff like
offering the code for free, but charging, say, $40 for the CD it's on.

Which…if you really stop to think about it…is not that different from
some of the "donation" schemes people try to pull.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

Abe should have written DikuMUD, and declared physical war on people stealing his codebase. That'd teach em.

By running a mud server, mainly for others pleasure (and then fuzzy feeling like people donating money to charity) you have an expense that deprives you from the money you could spend on hookers (or wife…both the same actually…except wives are more expensive). And considering how bickering are people with you just wanted to share the monetary burden cause the fuzzy generous feeling sometimes not really worth it (some players are even more annoying than those bickering license ayatollah).
Actually you would profiting by NOT running a server.
Or maybe that was the license intent: by running a DikuMud server only expenses are allowed !

jk..somehow (my actual point of view is I do not give a shit, if I needed donation, about those ayatollah opinion)

btw:are the mud banner paid for on Mudbytes ? Would not those be considered by those ayatollah like a way to profit from Diku (if those mud were using diku code ?)

A. The mud banners are free.

B. If they weren't free they'd still be able to charge. If you're a professional designer you'd be able to charge to work on a diku mud. It would be breaking the license (wrt the owner) if the owner of said mud raised money from players to pay you a salary. The owner wouldn't be profiting, but it's still equally a violation. The real unsettled question is "Can I accept donations?" and if so "What is a donation?" These definitions are not legally universal, but from what I've researched I can say that in most jurisdictions, in most societies, and in most contexts as far as the law is concerned a donation is a transaction without any expected return in services, materials, or status.

C. Yes. Running stuff costs money. What is your point? Find a free host if you're not willing to self fund. If someone wants to donate, fine. But building a system related to collecting money from users for any purpose is certainly not legit. Just because something exists (some code that someone was generous enough to publish under conditions) doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with it.

I sort of agree that donations aren't regulated by the license, but only actually legally squared donations. As Crat pointed out, thinly veiled systems to get money using the game as a product is against the license. Even if just for the costs of "doing business." Which includes paying for a host, giving yourself any arbitrary salary, business lunch meetings, etc etc. The word donation isn't just an alias. It has real semantic differences. Differences with distinction that don't matter wrt your terminology choices.

So, reading my post correctly, it's fairly obvious you weren't even making any real point here anyway.

I'll leave it to other readers to decide, but it looks like nonsense to me. You say it doesn't matter what is done with the money, it still retains its status as a donation (which is absolutely true). However, you go on to say that donations spent in a certain way is a serious crime. If it's a donation you can spend it how you want. Including on your mud, without it being a serious crime. Why would you think you couldn't spend *your own money* on the mud? After it's been donated to you it's yours to do with what you wish. But what you said later actually contradicts exactly what you said before. So when I asked you which view you actually had, It wasn't rhetoric. It's a question you can either answer or leave the readers to build their own conclusion from two seemingly opposed statements. Is it really that surprising those statements would generate confusion together?

No, the contradiction is in your head, not my words.

I say no matter what you do with a donation, it is still a donation. (Let's identify this as point #1.)

..then..

I say the license dictates that you not profit from it's use. (Let's identify this as point #2.)

–> donations used for operating costs are legal


—–>you tried to make an argument by confusing point #1 and point #2..

Okay, so it really sounds like you're saying that it's only profit if you spend it on something related to the game. What if you just take the money and leave it in your bank account? How is that not profit? I would argue it's *more* of a profit not to spend it on your game, but it's inconsequential. Donations have a legal protected status and the diku license can't prevent you from receiving true donations to spend however you wish. The real question there is "what is a donation?" You seem to be setting up the condition that it *is* a legal donation. Yet you're saying you can't spend a legal donation on the game because once you do it becomes profit.

My position is that if it's a true donation (as we're establishing as an agreed upon constant) you can spend it wherever and however you want legally and ethically. And it's probably more ethical to spend it on the mud than on beer or putting it in your savings.

Reread what you were saying. I dunno why but I thought you were saying that it's a profit to spend it on the mud, not on beer and such. So I think I still disagree, though. As was DH's point, I think that once you receive a donation you can do with what you wish.

Yes, once you receive a donation, regardless of what you do with it, it is still a donation. (Unless you're giving the player something in return.)

If soliciting for donations from your players as the MUD owner, you are bound legally to ensure that such funds are used solely for the purpose of costs directly related to operating the MUD and can not use any of that money for personal expenses. Personal expenses might include beer, blow, hookers, or other things of that nature.

If you don't believe me, you've clearly never had your business audited.

Wait… what? Says who? Yes, a donation could be made with those stipulations (as it often the case with money granted to schools, for example – "can only use it for student aid" etc.), but if I just had a "please give me money lol" button on my website, even on the MUD website in the capacity of the MUD owner, there are no such restrictions by default.

I'm not sure what this has to do with audited businesses though, to be honest. Business expenses are very different, because profit vs. revenue can actually matter for tax purposes and so forth.

Yea, that's true.

So, if you solicit for donations (anywhere) for the purpose of running your MUD then there is a stipulation.

The stipulation isn't made by the donator, it's made by the software license. As in, "You will not use the MUD to collect donations that are in turn used to profit you (the individual)."

Well, I guess so. But I'm not sure that a license can make that restriction in the first place.

How? If the license describes such a limitation and by using the software you are consenting to the license, you have voluntarily agreed to bind yourself to the terms.

How could we make any type of distinction between using donations to pay hosting or any other service required to bring the game to your players? Paying self a salary, paying a 3rd party to develop software, or *buying* servers you will own to host the game. Are we now in the area of saying that if the user uses servers *he owns* in the future that it was retrospectively a violation? This doesn't sound right at all.

I think if you're dealing with a legal donation A) the license can't and doesn't umbrella this money and B) you can spend it wherever you want. As I've already said, though, I think it's important to note that calling something a donation doesn't make it one.

I know we've been dealing specifically with the Diku license, but I thought this license was interesting. (diku derivative.)

http://www.circlemud.org/license.html

It specifically delimits the ways you aren't allowed to solicit for donations. Including reimbursement for server expenses. I think, however, it still wouldn't cover you accepting a donation generically. It's almost as absurd as "You no longer can exchange money with someone who ever plays your game." which a license cannot do.

A license cannot bind you to something that the law does not allow for. For example, you could not bind yourself into slavery (to take an extreme example). This has been discussed w.r.t. EULAs, for example, and "unreasonable" clauses that the EULA can stipulate but not actually enforce. In fact, you often see EULAs discussing what happens in the event of a clause being ruled invalid by a court of law.

As a matter of facts I don't know of any EULA that do not have any illegal claims in most juridictions.
Goal of EULA is to frighten you in abandonning your rights. Especially since they are never written by countries but are only global(and then again most are not even totaly valid in the country there were written in.)
As an example in France you have to provide a licence in French before you can sue….Cause hard to say someone who cannot understand a word you say can willingly accept all the terms of a contract….
And that does not stop any of our own company to try to screw us….we dont even have the right to regroup ourselves to make the law apply.

Une seule solution!

La manifestation!

Snicker, even that does not work anymore….