> A quickie... Out of interest, it's not against the license if a > bunch of friends chip in (who are mortals) to improve the server of the > mud they play at, is it? > > Also from license.doc: > > > -- You must not solicit or accept money or other donations in exchange for > > running CircleMUD. You must not accept money or other donations from > > your players for purposes such as hardware upgrades for running > > CircleMUD. > > Yeah, it's kind of harsh, but I'm sure Jeremy wants it as > black-and-white as possible. It's all too easy for some muds to fall > into pay-per-play; and circle is intended to be 100% free. Unfortunately, the wording specifically denies donations, or any sort of charity money. There is a way around it though. If you view it as an owned object, you are not allowed to make money from it, however, you have to put money into it to get it to 'be'. This money may go to hardware, software, or be traded off in time spent to setup your system, and install a circlemud. This is an expenditure that _someone_ has to make, eventually, to get your system going, and to keep it going. So, the status of owner means you donate your $/time/etc to the game, and you're the only type of person allowed to do so. With me so far? Okay, now, as a mud owner, you're entitled to spend as much money upgrading your system as you'd like. However, you cannot take other people's money. Of course, on some systems, there are several 'owners' - or at least admin level people with the same trust level as the owner. Tecnically, they could be declared part-owners, and therefore be allowed to donate $ to the upkeep of _their_ system. Taken a step further, I know alot of people who run muds, but are barely on as immortals - they'd rather play. Their admin character isn't ever used. Yet, they're the 'owners' of the mud. You could make an allowance for these sorts of owners, or players who can be declared partial owners, but have no administrative say that is directly enforced. Now, this is all in the legally grey area. You could liken it to a free stock handout by a company. Technically the players (accepting the free stock by creating a player) are now partial owners, depsite the fact that their leverage is very small, and individually rarely causes changes. Of course, isn't this the exact situation we see in every standard mud? Players all shouting 'bug' at once tend to have an impact, whereas one character (for all their volume) rarely effects a change? In fact, aren't muds more defined by their social groups than the areas, and code backing it up? I think that if you were to eventually take the license before an actual court of law, you would be able to see quite a few loopholes, most probably coming down to the requirement of a legal declaration of the sort: "By playing on this mud, you are considered a partial owner of the mud, and have some quantifiable rights implied by this ownership. You have the right to forfeit this ownership at any time, and upon declaration of forfeiture, you relinquish the rights said ownership conveys. The afforementioned rights must also be surrendered upon request by <list of admin characters>, as they reserve the right to declare an owner 'fit' for this gaming system." -- and so the license is bypassed ... Well, I'm not a lawyer, but it'd be something like that, and then poof, shrouded in a legal veil, you can play on exactly as before, only now you can take money, really, for anything, under the guise of donations. Yes, even money for items; don't you/your parents donate to a church and based on the $ ammount recieve a tangible reward? From public recoginition on the weekly flyer, to engraved crosses, hand-written notes of thanks, and copies of the bible? The fact of the matter is though, the circle license and the diku license that predates it only wanted to accomplish one thing ; protect the players from administrators who would abuse their addicitive behavior for financial gain. They saw no clear way to do this except by expansively declaring _all_ financial gain as invalid. However, they obviously didn't depend on the services of a lawyer to write this statement up. Now, myself, I adhere to the spirit, AND the implied, yet poorly defined critera. I wouldn't use the above co-owner situation simply because I have respect for the creators of the code. Don't think I haven't seriously considered rewriting a base from scratch with GPL licensing. .... however, I don't think that it's too hard to define who actually owns the mud - and really, they're the only ones who should be paying anything. Who knows, maybe circlemud will get GPL'ed in the future, and we can stop worrying about this, and let players who want to help, actually help. PjD +------------------------------------------------------------+ | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: | | http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | +------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/01 PDT