> This is not the answer I wanted to here, and to me it doesn't make any > sense. It is not forcing the players to pay for an account, it is the > same as just putting a 20 person limit on because of lack of ram or > something. In fact the license is hurting poor site-less Implementors > like me. Oh jeeze, this legal stuff makes me sick, I just want to put up > a mud and have my players enjoy it, but because of all this stupid legal > red tape I am once again probably site-less. *sigh* Okay, I'm a bit confused as to what the exact problem here is. But I see it this way. If the site is charging players a certain ammount of money to bypass the 20 person limit on the Mud ITSELF. Then, yes, that violates the licensing agreements. If the site is charging players a certian ammount of money to bypass the 20 person limit on a random machine, from which the Mud may be accessed, but not solely devoted to the Mud. Then there should not really be a problem. That would be like accusing any netcom, aol, or genie sites that happen to run muds (not sure if any do) of breaking a liscence agreement becuase they charge their users a monthly fee to use their machines (from which they can telnet to muds). -Eric: rasta@CSOS.ORST.EDU, gt7282c@prism.gatech.edu | mud.CSOS.ORST.EDU 4000 ------------------------------------------------------+------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/07/00 PST