[DGD] Commercial question

[Stephen Schmidt]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Christopher Allen wrote:
> Shentino wrote:
> > Is this allowed without a commercial license:
> >
> > 1.  Setting up a public mud.
> > 2.  Accepting donations to keep it running.
> >
> > These donations would not be in any way mandatory and would confer no
> > benefit apart from keeping the mud running.

> I think technically Dworkin's DGD license doesn't allow this, but you'll
> have to get an official answer from him.

I agree that only Dworkin can officially answer this, but while
we're giving unofficial answers, accepting donations to keep a
mud running was a fairly widespread practice under LP and, as
far as I know, was not deemed to violate the LP license. Unless
Dworkin's license has stricter language than the LP license had,
that might be a relevant precedent. It was also common practice
(though not as common) to acknowledge donors within the mud,
either by posting names or by adding something in the game world.
That would probably be permitted as not "conferring benefit".

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, and my knowledge of the legality
of these matters is rooted in the US common law systems. I do not
know whether DGD license questions should be adjudicated under
European civil law, which is quite different from common law
systems in a number of important ways. I know very little about
civil law but my understanding is that precedents, especially
ones that aren't directly relevant, are a lot less important
in civil law than in common law. LPMud licenses would probably
have been civil law also since LP originated in Sweden which
I -think- picked up Code Napoleon at some point in the early
19th century. Not sure.

I suppose I can put it in the form of a question: Is the DGD
license understood to be interpreted under Dutch law or some
other law? How about the Skotos one? Is that an American
product, hence more likely to fall under common law?

Steve