On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:46:44AM -0500, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:
>
> I just couldn't help enlightening cluebies..
>
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Jeremy Hill wrote:
>
> > No.
> >
> > Diku license:
> >
> > -- No resale or operation for profit.
> > -- Original author's names must appear in login sequence.
> > -- The 'credits' command must report original authors.
> > -- You must notify the Diku creators that you are operating a Diku mud.
> >
> > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html
> > #1.
>
> Your above points do not conflict with #1-9 of the above url.
Actually:
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not
restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being
used for genetic research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit
license traps that prevent open source from being used
commercially. We want commercial users to join our community,
not feel excluded from it.
The Diku license forbids its use and distribution commercially.
> > You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in
> > any possible way. You may under no circumstances charge money for
> > distributing any part of dikumud - this includes the usual $5 charge
> > for "sending the disk" or "just for the disk" etc.
> > By breaking these rules you violate the agreement between us and the
> > University, and hence will be sued.
>
> Quote chapter and verse of where this conflicts with the OSD.
Rule #6. It discriminates against commercial use. Usage rules are a
no-no.
Diku is not compliant with the DFSG and not part of Debian GNU/Linux
for this reason.
This is what the FSF says about a similar license mandate by the
University of Utah:
The Utah Public License is a non-free license because it does not
allow commercial redistribution. It also purports to restrict
commercially running the software and even commercially giving
consultation about it. Those restrictions are probably not
legally enforcible under US copyright law, but they might be in
some countries; even asserting them is outrageous.
How does that differ from Diku?
