Member Discussions

I ran a first builder agreement past my co-imp, who toned it down a bit. If you would suggest additions, deletions, rephrases, it'd be much appreciated.

My version:
Cantilena Zone Building Acknowledgement

In order to build a zone on Cantilena, you must agree to the following terms and conditions before you will be allowed access to the OLC (online creation system).

By way of definition, 'zone' includes all of the following files associated with a particular zone: rooms, mobiles, objects, shops, and triggers and any reference to 'we' or 'our' refers to Cantilena's senior administrators, Solaria and Eldaron.


- Copyright of the text of the zone belongs to you and you exclusively.

- You do not have any rights to dictate how your zone is used on Cantilena. You also will not be granted exclusivity in any way on the MUD for your zone.

- By building on Cantilena, you are giving express permission to us to implement the zone on Cantilena only. In reverse, you are also agreeing not to build the same zone on another MUD or release the zone to the public domain via any channel out of creative spirit. We thrive on uniqueness and would like Cantilena to remain as such.

- Anything you build using Cantilena's OLC is subject to review by the Master Builder and/or the Head Builder(s). We reserve the right to make modifications to your zone in order to:
- balance the zone, which may require editing any zone components or the removal of such entirely;
- fix all spelling and/or any obvious grammar errors that detract from the feel of the room;
- rearrange the lay of the rooms to make the zone more coherent or to allow passage to another zone;
- fix anything else that we feel needs adjustment.



My co-imp's version:
Cantilena Builder Agreement

We strive to make Cantilena a wonderful MUD. This requires us to be both unique and realistic - we want a world that is believeable (and properly suspends belief) and balanced. Consequently, you should understand the following points:

We will place your zone on the MUD so as it best suits our world.

By building here, you are giving us permission to implement your zone on Cantilena only. You are also agreeing to not have your zone implemented on another MUD or to make it public domain. (After all, we wouldn't remain
unique otherwise.)

In the interests of fair play, your zone will be open to all players equally.

We reserve the right to make modifications to your work as follows:
- balance the zone in context with the rest of the world. (Your mobs need to be of correct difficulty, your items of correct value, etc.)
- fix spelling and grammatical errors (obviously).
- rearrange the lay of the rooms to make the zone more coherent or to allow passage to another zone.

>You are also agreeing to not have your zone implemented on another MUD or to make it public domain.

I don't think that's going to fly. The agreement would have to be physically signed for it to have substance. In any case I think it's an unreasonable demand -although I as an admin would certainly prefer 'our' zones not to be used elsewhere. After all, what's to stop the administration kicking the builder out as soon as the zone is finished?

A more feasible clause would simply grant the MUD the explicit right to use and modify the zone at their discression, and this right would be irrevocable (in the event the builder leaves), unless there's proven foul play on the administration's part or they are treating the area unreasonably/making unjust allegations, etc. The area should always be credited to the builder (at least as 'the original creator'.)

E

Comments on your license:
What does 'You also will not be granted exclusivity in any way on the MUD for your zone.' mean? Is exclusivity even a word? It's also far too detailed on your end concerning what you may or may not do to the area. You run the risk of making a modification or change you haven't listed. 'Implement' is also not really a good word as isn't clear just what that means.

Comments on your co-imps license:
He's asking for 'exclusive use'. Not without a signature. Same deal with 'public domain'.

Here's a simple license that gives you everything but exclusive use:

'You hereby grant Cantilena Mud a perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, modify, adapt, publish, publicly display and perform any of the content you submit to Cantilena Mud.'

Then of course you need to identify clearly who Cantilena Mud is as it is a fictitious name.

'Cantilena Mud is Solaria and Eldaron who are... blah and blah'

Thanks for your help, gents. Here's the revised edition:

Cantilena, the Song Eternal is a CircleMUD administrated by Solaria and
Eldaron.

By building for Cantilena, you hereby grant us a perpetual, irrevocable, non-
exclusive, royalty-free license to use, modify, adapt, publish, publicly
display, and perform any content you submit on the MUD. We reserve the right
to make changes to or remove your zone at our discretion. We also ask that
you not to give your zone rights to anyone outside of Cantilena, as we wish
all areas in the MUD to remain unique, but you retain all copyrights to your
zone and may do with it as you see fit.

My personal view is that this is much better. I'd like to offer a couple of further suggestions, if I may, which go to protecting the moral rights of the builder as the creator of the work--

(1) You could state that regardless of any alterations you make, the builder will receive appropriate credit (by way of a credits command, or a scroll under a loose stone in a dimly lit corridor, or whatever).

(2) You could also offer to provide the original builder, on request, a copy of the files relating to the zone as created. A builder who creates a zone with an offline editor would of course have these files; someone using OLC may not have a comprehensive listing of what he or she has created.

These two additions don't impose any additional burden on the MUD admins, IMHO, but do create a more positive environment for the builder.

Anyway, it's just a thought.

Cheers
Bill

> - Copyright of the text of the zone belongs to you and
> you exclusively.

Goes without saying, but good so far.

> - You do not have any rights to dictate how your zone is
> used on Cantilena. You also will not be granted
> exclusivity in any way on the MUD for your zone.

Erk, and then you botch it on the second paragraph. While you are providing access to the OLC, it is for the direct purpose that the builder provide areas for you. That is, this notice should be about the builder granting you rights, not you granting the builder rights.

> - By building on Cantilena, you are giving express
> permission to us to implement the zone on Cantilena only.
> In reverse, you are also agreeing not to build the same
> zone on another MUD or release the zone to the public
> domain via any channel out of creative spirit. We thrive
> on uniqueness and would like Cantilena to remain as such.

Exclusive use and transfer of copyright can only be arranged through a signed contract. This clause is a non-clause. Also, I prefer to keep rationales out of specific licence clauses.

> - Anything you build using Cantilena's OLC is subject to
> review by the Master Builder and/or the Head Builder(s).
> We reserve the right to make modifications to your zone
> in order to:

This needs to be reworded. You may not reserve a right you don't have.

> - fix anything else that we feel needs adjustment.

I don't like "Get Out Of Jail Free" clauses. As I said in another post, were I to build for a mud with such a clause, I would require a clause that says that the mud administration will make "best efforts" to retain theme and ambience when modifying an area submitted by the builder.

Kas.

I explicitly state to my builders that they won't receive a copy of their area. This to avoid area files floating around and ending up somewhere else, and making it harder to duplicate the area for another mud.

I don't know what the general feeling and legality about this approach is though. We do give builders the right to get an exclusive copy and not have the area shipped along, when the code base is released back into the public domain.

(1) is fine and dandy.
(2) could impose a pretty significant burden on the MUD admins. Why? Well you'd have to keep versions of everything anyone did laying about. I don't know about this mud, but in our case it was very rare that we didn't modify areas quite a bit and also rare that a builder's duties were limited to creating a single area. Even providing the area file would have been useless as the format would have been alien.

> We also ask that

A licence should be a set of definitive terms, not a wish-list. In this case, the clause does nothing and is hence irrelevant. Write a preamble to outline the intent of the licence, sure, but don't put emotional blackmail in the actual clauses like that.

This to avoid area files floating around and ending up somewhere else, and making it harder to duplicate the area for another mud.

Simple fix to this problem is to modify how your mud saves the area... Make it save in a non-stock format, they it makes it that much harder for another admin to read the file.

I don't know what the general feeling and legality about this approach is though. We do give builders the right to get an exclusive copy and not have the area shipped along, when the code base is released back into the public domain.

You don't want the area file floating around, but you plan to release the code base on public domain.... So again whats to prevent someone else from just grabbing this cool area from your code base, and using it on there mud? And with the code base released you save them alot of time cause then they can lookup how you saved the file so you can read it in almost perfectly.

Well, could be another 10 years before the code base is released, will see how that goes. That line was added to ensure that the builder has a say in what happens to the area in that case.

But honestly I am just being paranoid *grin*

Main question stays: what's the general feeling and legality about denying builders a copy of their area files?

Main question stays: what's the general feeling and legality about denying builders a copy of their area files?

I'd be hard pressed to say that there was any legal requirement that you make copies available. I think (and IANAL) that the responsibility is theirs alone.

I would state that up front though, lest there be any doubts in expectations there.

We didn't do it. Why? A few situations came up. One, a builder wanted us to give him a copy of an area in which they had done about 50 rooms out of a few hundred. The intent was to put it up on their own mud, however none of the other authors would have approved. Two, we had someone posing as an old builder from years gone trying to get a copy of an area. Three, frankly most of our builders produced areas that ended up being heavily editted or had significant added value by others writing progs, and so we'd have been distributing others work.

From a general feeling perspective, I'm guessing many builders would consider you not giving them a copy on demand to be an act of 'major meanness' on your part. *shrug* oh well. ;-)

Our policy is simple.

When a builder completes an area to their own specs, they recieve an area file, if they wish one. After that, we begin editing for content, adding progs and so on. Once the file is given to the original builder at the time of it's initial completion it is no longer our responsibility to provide it for them. If the area is a joint effort they must all agree to share credit within the mud, and each would have to approve of everyone having a copy of the file. Personally I dont like having authors share credit, too many problems come up with who did what and who gets credit for what. While I do have this come up from time to time, I do try to limit it to no more than 2 builders per area. Any more and no one knows whats going on with the area anymore, everyone just does their own thing, which should just be made as different areas.