If a MUD Client exists that states in it's license that it is freeware, but specifically prohibits commercial use, could this be interpreted to mean that you cannot use it to connect to a pay-to-play MUD? An interesting question.
The logical conclusion you'd draw from that would be that you can't turn around and sell copies of it to other people, or charge your players an access fee to use it on your MUD. I can't see it being interpreted as barring its use to connect to a pay-to-play game in general.
It would depend on the exact wording of the license. Every word (especially if they are defined specifically in the license) and even the punctuation, are important.
Post any clauses mentioning commercial use and we could likely give a more informed opinion (though in my case certainly not a "legal advice" one. Standard "not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, seek qualified legal help in your locale" applies).
Possibly, but who cares. The author would have to be the one sueing you for what the wording 'could possibly mean' to matter, and it's quite obvious that's not the intent of the wording so they wouldn't be suing you.
Limiting your right to modify/redistribute is fairly standard. It is however 'fairly' unusual to limit whether somebody can pay money while using your product. "Yeah, you can buy the car, but you can't drive on toll roads with it" …
There's a bit of a difference. Cars don't come with a free-software non-commercial license.
No, it's just your typical software-as-is-no-warranty-all-rights-reserved license.
It also says, quote "[…]restrictions imposed by their network provider relating to MUD playing. Users must also take responsibility for restrictions imposed by any MUD they play relating to the use of client or server software such as Fire Client."
If it says you can't use it for commercial use, and that a restriction of the MUD in question is paying for it.. commercial use?
Anyway, I know this is pointless, but I felt the need to stir up a legal debate since we haven't had one in a while :P
Uh, yes, I was trying to make an analogy as to why such a restriction would be unusual in general, not only for software. The point is that it is not typical of free software licenses to prevent you from using them to talk to commercial applications, as long as you're not the one seeing the money. Even then, many licenses don't care about that, either: they care about preserving the freedom of the software and its source.
But since you've revealed that this whole thing was pointless and was just to stir up trouble, I guess I don't have any need to reply further. :wink: