I did, look:
So my question was: "Why not?" and it was pretty obvious that it meant: "why can't I distribute my code under a different license or even sell it when the codebase is a Diku derivative?".

You didn't explain anything, it seems to me that you're trying to complicate the whole discussion for whatever reasons you may have. One time you're saying that my code is not my code when the codebase I have written it for is a Diku derivative, the other time you're telling me that I own modules of custom code and I can sell them.

Well in that case I already answered you. I even provided links to the website of the US Copyright Office so that you could read a more detailed explanation.


If you write a piece of code from scratch, then you are probably* the copyright holder, and may generally* use or sell it as you wish.

If you modify someone else's code, then you are still the copyright holder of the new version (the derivative work), but your copyright does not extend to the preexisting material. You are therefore bound by whatever licensing conditions the copyright holder of the preexisting material specifies.

In this thread we are specifically talking about Diku-derived code. That means it is bound by the Diku licence, and you cannot relicence the codebase without express permission from the Diku team. You have no rights to the preexisting Diku code other than those granted by the Diku licence.


* If we ignore things like work-for-hire, trademarks, patents, etc, to keep things simple.

It's less about him being some avatar of legal light, and more about the fact that KaVir is correct on this specific point.

It's surprising to me sometimes that this stuff needs to be spelled out so frequently. Perhaps KaVir can compose
a licensing FAQ in the spirit with which I composed a newcomer letter. Might save everyone a little heartburn.

As to the specific question, in my opinion (and I ANAL) the Diku license is very nearly unusable for
just about anything involving money, so the default correct answer for most any question about money+Diku
is "use some other codebase if you actually care about staying legal". Note that the Diku authors' recommendation
for making money from your Diku game is selling physcial real world objects to people, not services based
on their code.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

If you can demonstrate beyond doubt that the personal gift is unrelated to a Diku code exchange that happened around the same time, then you're golden. Otherwise, you're a criminal. The Diku guys are unlikely to prosecute you, but that doesn't make your violation any smaller.



I think that's admirable.



It's very easy: you can take the Diku license out of the distribution when you take all Diku code out of the distribution.

And I already said it didn't answer my question. It's irrelevant, because your first link talks about someone else's work and the second one talks about derivative works. I have never mentioned those in this thread. I keep talking about my code, my work, something I own. Since I was talking about code I own, it's obvious that I wasn't talking about code I don't own (derivative work, someone else's work).

Yes, finally. That's what I was talking about since the beginning of this conversation. So if I write a function to handle webcams and put it into original Diku source, it's still my code for handling webcams and I can re-license it or sell it. It doesn't matter what the license of Diku says. It doesn't matter that it's not a module.

I've never argued with that, but it's an interesting matter, because how do you define modification of someone else's code? Isn't adding a separate module a modification of the original source? Separate function in an existing file? Separate line of code, or an if block added to prevent some crash? 100 lines of code written from scratch but added to an existing function? But no, I'm not looking for holes to exploit here, I always try to make it easy to see what's the original and what's written from scratch by me. Interesting problem nevertheless.

Again, I've never argued with that. My suggestion wasn't to sell/buy the whole codebase, which would include the Diku-licensed code indeed. But if Igabod's friend can organize the code, say, into Diku and non-Diku files of code (assuming the non-Diku code is his), then why wouldn't he sell his own, non-derived code to Igabod?

That's exactly what I suggested. Weird that I hear it from you, not the copyright experts.

The subject of this thread is a very specific question, as posed by Igabod in the original post: Can someone legally sell "code that was based on the diku code".

You appear to be arguing "Yes, as long as the code isn't based on the diku code".

Along similar lines:

Q: Can you legally base your mud on a copyrighted novel without permission?
A: Yes, as long as the novel isn't copyrighted, or you have permission.

Q: Can you legally use D&D Product Identity monsters in your mud?
A: Yes, as long as none of the monsters are Product Identity.

Q: Are you allowed to remove the copyright notices from DikuMUD file headers?
A: Yes, as long as you don't remove any copyright notices.

So he's got his answer. And I suggested an alternative (hence the "though", if you care to read the very first message I posted to this thread).

So there you go Igabod, just ask your acquaintance if he'll rewrite his mud from scratch for $100 :P

Well, what I had in mind was separate Diku code from non-Diku code and exchange the non-Diku code for money.

Criminal until proven innocent is what you are saying…

The vast majority of the changes would be based on (or be modifications to) the underlying Diku infrastructure. Even most snippets are heavily tied to a specific codebase, and those are usually designed from the outset to be separate modules offering specific functionality. When modifying a codebase though, many of the changes tend to be minor adjustments here and there - not something that can be meaningfully separated. But that's not the only problem…

If you develop a custom module of code from scratch, and then apply it to a DikuMUD, it's clear where one ends and the other begins. But if you modify a DikuMUD, and then later try to separate all your tweaks and changes from the rest of the Diku code, it starts to sound very much like a piecewise reimplementation. Even if you're sure you've not copied any of the original code, the fact that your modifications were built onto the Diku architecture would raise some serious questions about the copying of nonliteral elements.

At the end of the day it would be a huge undertaking, a lot of functionality would be lost, and it would still be rather a grey area legally speaking. It is not something I would recommend.

I suspect you are confusing "criminal" and "convicted". There are plenty of unconvicted criminals out there. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" applies once criminal charges are filed and doesn't change their status in the real world.

Admittedly, I was exaggerating a bit for dramatic effect. A software license violation will not be pursued in a criminal court for at least as long as we live. Stealing intellectual property is, at worst, a misdemeanor and the penalty is usually a fine proportional to any estimated financial loss.

If you post details of a "gift arrangement" on a public forum, and the Diku guys decide to file charges, I have little doubt that you'll end up paying a small fine – all this extremely hypothetically, of course.

At the end of the day, my rule is "do unto others what you want done unto you." The right thing to do should be especially clear here since everyone involved is a software developer.

The good news is the OP is on the same wavelength as the best of us.

I couldn't agree with KaVir more, but I'd like to add another thing to what he said.

The MUD community. It just happens that in the MUD community there are always people willing to take a closer look at you. Even if everything you've done with your codebase is perfectly legal and meets all requirements of any possible license and it doesn't break relevant rules of any kind. To them, for example, your "implementation" of sheathing sounds very much like a some kind of indirect copy of sheathing in some other MUD. (After all, "sheathing in MUD A" sounds suspiciously similar to "sheathing in MUD B"…) And those people will raise some serious questions about your MUD's compliance with Human Rights, DMCA and the like, which is a very serious accusation and you should avoid that at any cost!

So my suggestion is, if you don't want to face a lot of talking; assumptions, generalizations, serious questions, conditional accusations – then don't mess with those people. Avoid success. Don't say what you think, think what they say. Don't mention that you're making money. Otherwise a few highly credible individuals will produce an expertise concluding that no upright player should play your MUD, because they think its authors may be doing something that would raise some serious questions…

Ideas are not protected by copyright law. There is a vast difference between drawing inspiration from another mud (eg if you copied my general approach to weapon-sheathing based on the description I posted on the forums) and ripping some code out of a DikuMUD and claiming that it's no longer a derivative work.

A mud cannot be developed in an intellectual vacuum. Every mud draws ideas from games that came before it, as well as a variety of other sources. I've drawn inspiration from card games, board games, roleplaying games, video games, movies, sports, mythology, etc.

However that is very different to copying source code. Muds that start out as Diku derivatives and then one day suddenly claim to be "rewritten from scratch" do indeed face a lot of suspicion, which is hardly surprising considering the history of the mud community.

The real world say you do no thave to prove that you are innocent. You received money , code was exhanged, that does not mean that if you did not received money the code would not have been exchanged. That is one of the many problems with this quite stupid license.
According to it, you would not even be able to pay someone to work on it.
I do not really care about the Diku License, as I do not ask any money for the mud I work on, nor would I, and everyone asking the code would be free to have it for what I care. Am just saying that the license is itself quite legally questionable in most country.

so the general summary to all of this back and forth debate is that I can't pay my friend for the use of his code. If he were to rip out every last vestige of the diku code that would only create more work for me than starting from scratch with a non-diku licensed code. But it's alright, I've decided to go with a different code base anyway because I want to have oceanic travel.

I'm not sure it's actually legally possible to forbid consulting work on Diku, although selling pre-prepared code is different. Bringing such a claim to test would involve a confrontation in court, I suppose. Regardless, it would seem to be against the spirit of the license, without much doubt at all.

So what if you produce and distribute only the patch files (all written by you) to make a stock diku modified to the desired custom level? Do you have to follow the diku license as the person distributing that code?

I would assume no. Considering all you're releasing is your own custom work.

If that's true you could basically avoid the diku license by just distributing it with an installer. What do you think, KaVir?