If by 'semantic' you mean that they don't actually mean the same thing and that it can matter for legal purposes, then yes, it's a semantic difference. If by 'semantic' you mean 'trivial', then no, it is not a trivial difference, depending on where you are. :smile:
We are however fully agreed that you don't want to be taking in money saying you're one thing when you're something else, or if you're bending the truth. If you are already basically infringing on somebody else's IP in the first place, then you really don't want to give them even more reason to come after you.
MUDs are very, very rarely for NPO status, because they're considered an 'entertainment product'. Granted, again, laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdictin, but I find it difficult to believe that a government would legally recognize a MUD as a NPO (and definetely not as a charity).
I think that you should be careful about making claims without being even more clear that you mean in your own very particular jurisdiction. In the United States, for example, being an entertainment product has absolutely nothing to do with qualifying for non-profit status.
A cursory Google search shows that in at least some parts of Canada, some entertainment services can be not-for-profit, such as theaters. I'm curious if you could point to something more specific about this (perhaps it varies by province?) since it's pretty surprising (and news) to me.
Note that there are different kinds of non-profit statuses, hence the distinction between a generic NPO and a charity, for example. Not all NPOs are tax-exempt in the US, either.