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.

Ditto. I think the intention is that you can't make money off of the client.

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).

Just for an example, Fire Client's liscence states:

"[…]This release of Fire Client is being released as freeware, meaning you are able to use it in it's present state for free. […] free for all non-commercial use."

Could 'free for all non-commercial use' be interpreted as 'You cannot use it for a commercial MUD'?

I would be astonished if that is what it meant, and even more astonished if the author thought it was a reasonable thing to ask. I suspect it means that you cannot make money off of the client itself.

I don't mean if it was the author's intention, I just mean: Could it be twisted (by a lawyer) to have that meaning?

If it's not against the author's intention, then he won't sue you for it, so the point is kind of moot if you're doing something the author doesn't care about.

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.

It's unlikely that the intent of that license was to keep you from connecting to a commercially based game with it.

It's far more likely that they just don't want you putting up a website and selling copies of it for profit.

The only person who can properly answer your question is the author though.

It could.

Is their license a specific type? Creative Commons-NC, for instance? Certain licensing can also limit your ability to modify and redistribute, or even to re-license in the future.

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:

The whole thing is pointless, but I wasn't trying to stir up trouble, just a debate. :p

Well, in my book, a completely pointless debate is pretty close to trouble. :tongue: