License Laws was Re: [MUD-Dev] Where's The Line Drawn

[Frank Crowell]

Èric Rhéa wrote:

> License Laws FAQ, as it relates to gaming, is something that I do
> not believe I've ever encountered before. Allow me to rephrase that
> - I do not believe I've ever encountered a central location that
> speaks about the various licenses available and what they mean to a
> designer, developer, or what have you

The mud world sort of makes too big of a thing about licenses, given
that the copyright ownerships are in a muddle.  All the developers
share some parts of the copyright and very few muds actually have a
clear owner/owners.  The correct way to have done this was to get
written assignments from all the other developers.  An EULA is not the
correct way to get an assignment. An employer doesn't have to get an
assignment because it is already implied in the employment laws.  But
for important IP issues especially patents, employers will get an
assignment of rights from the employee.

The first rule of IP law is "get the assignment of rights".  If the
copyright is muddled, then its pretty hard to determine who has the
right to license the product on the whole.  Probably a Stephen White
mud has fairly clear ownership.  Pavel Curtis felt that the LamdbaMOO
server had clear owners but not the database.

 Licensing is infinitely divisible and controlled by the content
 owner. So you can have "one-time, North America", "Pacific Rim only
 distribution", "Printed media only". Assignment is an "all inclusive"
 transfer of rights.  You can't do a partial assignment; that is
 called a license. "Permission to use" is a variation of the license
 and not a transfer.

It's interesting how much energy some mud developers spend in
protecting their property and how little energy they spend on doing
things right with their minor developers.

frank

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev