With a slightly lesser tone, I was rather thinking nearly the same thing, hasn't this subject reached its conclusion yet? Or is this a topic so near and dear to everyone's heart that it just never loses interest?

It never loses interest.

Sadly, this seems to be the truth. No matter how many times it's discussed to death (in it's various forms) and no matter how many different sites it's discussed to death on. *sigh*

seriously, lets all pitch in, and get a copyright lawyer to peer over the licence for diku, merc, or derived base which you run from, and just end it, because then we'll know where we stand.

I vote samson and tyche flip the bill..

I say Samson cuz well, we all want to hear what samson's lawyer says..

And I also say Tyche, cuz well, its Tyche, and i'm sure he can afford it, (i know i sure as hell can't… oi, i'm poor, i think i'm going to setup a paypal on my site where people can donate me money so i can continue to exist)

With that being said… Uhh… Don't mind my poor me message. Just go on about your business.

These aren't the droids your looking for.




Pies anyone? <oh i miss midboss………>

I would donate money to the Darien's Continuing to exist fund. It would be a great charity. However, I wouldn't care once ROCS was finished. :devil: :cyclops:

Darien, I have nothing against making this attempt, but I know what will happen if I do. Certain people will chime in claiming the lawyer's statement can't be verified, that it's not valid for X reason, and in some cases even be told he's dead wrong. In a way, I feel sorry for Matt when he has to deal with a standard which keeps being raised higher and higher each time the issue comes up.

well, we get a lawyer, we get him to post the results on his website, we post it on our website, and then we simply say, if you think its wrong, hire a lawyer, and get him to post his results on his own website from his firm, and we'll move from there, else-wise, their information and take on the situation is wrong, because you would then have a legal backing as to what the licence truly means.

frankly, its the best bet to stop this insane topic from arising as often as it does

I just wanna see a lawyer take the time to look at somethign MUD related. It oughta be great fun. :tongue:

Kayle, i agree with that statement too, i just think to end this debate, we should honestly get someone in here who can state the exact meaning behind the license, because nomatter how the diku devs meant it, their wording may ultimatly not be what they meant.

So to fix this, we should simply take a lawyer, and get him to say, this is how the law would interpret it. and sign it, put it on his website, email it to diku so they can put it on their site, we post the results.

and blamo, no more problems. if so, see said lawyer for clarification.

You're missing the large picture Darien. 10 lawyers would give you ten different interpretations, there is no 1 way the law would interpret it.

i know 10 lawyers would give ten different interpretations, unless they were copyright lawyers, which specialize in wording, they could very easily point out how it could be interpreted, in all the means, and state those facts. and then you would be simply bound within those possible meanings.

that is my belief.

You meant >especially< if they were copyright lawyers…. *cough*

yuppers, thats what i meant.

and boys an gurls, thats what happens when you are deep in coding and decide to post a thought on a forum without checking what you wrote before posting, because you are too ambitious to get back to coding.


Enjoy

Actually, you're only bound by what judges say, not lawyers. Lawyers only advise.

However, you could get 10 different judges, who would give ten different interpretations… :rolleyes:


I think the truth of it is, it never occurred to the DIKU team that anyone would charge people to play what they were giving away. I think the license simply doesn't cover that possibilty, and thus no one has the right to do so.

perhaps diku should clarify what they ment by stating it officialy on their website, breaking down their license so that all of us could simply go and read their actual meanings then.

because allot of the licence is vague in meaning, and could mean multipul things.

All having the team clarify things would do is confuse matters. The only binding agreement in place is the license itself. Their statements on the matter would help clarify their intent, but you can't enforce an agreement based on intent, only on what it says.

that is a good point. so i guess we are at an impass, which means, until we have a way of knowing the exact meaning without debating, is to go on our marry way.

I intend to :)

I agree. I'm tired of this topic, and unless we're bringing in a lawyer for a laugh, I'm tired of hearing about licenses. If you're desperate enough for money that you have to sell things on a mud to make money, maybe you should re-evaluate the way your life is headed. If you want people to pay to play.. Make an MMORPG like WoW or FFXI. That's what people expect to see if they have to pay to play… not text.

What agreement? As has been said before the Diku license is not a contract.

It may not be a contract, but if you don't agree to the terms, you have no rights other than what the license gives you. So legal agreement or not, it's still an agreement. If the Diku authors wanted to revoke permission because I started selling virtual swords we built ourselves, they could certainly do so. But I think the only reason they haven't is because such an action hasn't been tested in court yet and nobody knows if this thing would hold up at all. Because this isn't a distribution issue. It's a commercial activity and/or performance issue.