Member Discussions

I, like many people out there, am starting up a mud. I have a small team and such set in place. I recently posted what may become the rules for administrators working for the mud on our web site for perusal of the admin. They can be viewed at http://www.nym.xanet-hosting.com/AdminGuidelines.txt

One point of debate right now involves paragraph 19. We are still trying to decide if we should go for full rights on contributed content or not. We are still leaning heavily towards going for full content just to protect ourselves. We would probably never actually go after anyone who violates the aggreement. We may even encourage the writing of stories and such.

Our fears in not retaining full rights are generally mud oriented. The first is in seeing our 'Original Areas' either coming from another mud, or being used on another mud later on. We are also worried about someone possibly doing something with the property within the parts that they own that would later cause us to strip content, or shut down. We also hope to eventually release the code base to the public after it has run stable for a few years, and may not be able to do so if we don't have full rights. One thing we are considering is maybe just retaining full electronic rights instead, or having a special section for fan fiction or similar content.

I would love to hear the input of more experienced administrators on this matter. Thank you all as well for all the help you have given me in the past, and for your consideration in this matter.

Any work contributed to Epoch Omega become the sole property of Epoch
Omega. While we give credit to individuals for such works we reserve the right
to use, or not use any of this work in a manner seen fit by the senior members
of the administration. Essentially this means that any individual contributing
work for Epoch Omega releases all rights to the property to Epoch Omega and
have no right to make demands on its use.

Sorry this is a transferral of copyright and is not valid without a written signature of the author/programmer. See - http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc

Who or what is Epoch Omega? It must be a legal entity. Is it me? you? Bubba and Jimbo? Microsoft Inc.?

Thanks Tyche.

Epoch Omega is the name of the mud in question. We are looking for a way to be able to use contributed content in whatever way the administration of that mud may see fit without recourse from the original author as long as credit is given to the contributor. We are also wanting to ensure that content we believed to be created for the mud is not found to be used elsewhere. Content created specifically for another mud will also not be permissable. We are not so much worried about the code iteself, as much as story content which may be tied up in areas, web content, and documentation that may be submitted.

We hope to eventually release the code under the GPL however as well. We were afraid that without the relinquishing of rights that this might not be possible. We were also hoping to avoid any occurences of theft of content prior to release, so was not going to start with the GPL, but transfer the rights to GPL later on. We were under the impression that we wouldn't be able to do that unless we had full rights.

We are seriously considering the signing of a release of rights for everything outside of the code itself. We are trying to find another option for the code however. Builders write areas using tools. Coders write games using tools as well, but their tools is the code.

What we are looking for as far as code goes is some way to allow the original author to use their contribution as they see fit outside of the mud, while still alowing us to alter/change/drop the content as needed as the mud grows. Then, have the rights to possibly release the whole to the general public later on under the GPL. If we started under the GPL however, the code could become public before it is ready. Or we are ready. However you want to look at it.

Basically, it is the code at this point which is murky for us. Perhaps we can go ahead and set up the license for the GPL now, and then have a separate license concerning access until such a time that it is moved to a place where the general public would have access to it anyways. That could get real messy though.

Epoch Omega is the name of the mud in question.

It must be a legal entity in order for one to enter into any contract with 'it'. It has no more legal standing than a shoe or a cat.

We hope to eventually release the code under the GPL however as well. We were afraid that without the relinquishing of rights that this might not be possible.

That is correct.

. Builders write areas using tools. Coders write games using tools as well, but their tools is the code.

If you are reasoning that an author using your tools means you own the copyright to their works then you are very mistaken.

What I meant by tools is the builder's tools would be things like their imgagination and computer. It would be ridiculous to tell a builder that they could not use their imagination or computer just because they created something for a mud. The problem with code is that many programmers will have bits of code on their computer which they have been using for years. Telling them they can't use that code after contributing it to the mud would be just as ridiculous as telling a builder they can't use, or sell their computer if they used it to contribute content to the mud.

Right now the mud has no legal standing. We will register it as a not for profit entity if that is what it comes down to. We still face the problem of how programmers can contribute to the mud without fear of losing the right to use their code outside of the mud, or us later releasing the code to the general public.

I'm still looking elsewhere for answers as well as here. Maybe we'll go for two types of submission contracts. One for story related content such as areas and documentation, and one for system specific content such as code that lets the original user still use their code, but allows us to use and alter the code as we see fit, and later release it to the public.

I remember a pre-GPL license for development teams that protects a project from being released before it is ready and protects against early exploitation between members of the development team. I'm trying to track it down because it may be what we are looking for, but I'm having trouble finding it. It basically limited the rights of all involved to protect all, but evolves into the GPL after a predetermined amount of time. Something like that may be more in line of what I am looking for, but I'm not finding it.

We will register it as a not for profit entity if that is what it comes down to.

It's really as simple as listing the parties to an agreement or license that are using the fictitious name. If it's a person or partnership of some us or we, name them. Ie. The Diku Group is blah, blah, blah... The ROM consortium is blah blah. That's all I'm suggesting about your document. In order to assign copyright or exclusive rights there has to be real parties on both ends of the agreement. You can't transfer property to a entity to be named later.

BTW, registering as a non-profit is done when there IS money involved. It's a tax designation. *shiver*

I remember a pre-GPL license for development teams that protects a project from being released before it is ready and protects against early exploitation between members of the development team.

Maybe there is, but any agreement involving exclusive rights need involve written signatures. I don't know where you are going to find programmers or builders that are going to give you exclusive rights for nothing. Maybe those who can't be held to it anyways - like those under 16 or 18. Of course Redhat and IBM have found people to work on their dual licensed GPL projects for free, but they get some benefit the use of the software as it is GPLed while they don't get any benefit from RedHat or IBM commercial royalties.

Anyway I'm not sure what your doing. You see the minute someone assigns their copyright to you, they lose the right to use their stuff. I've worked on a couple closed source muds and the agreement was pretty simple. I granted them the non-exclusive rights to use and alter my code, but neither had any distribution rights. I'd personally never work on any project that wanted me to grant them exclusive rights or transfer copyright unless there was $$$cash$$$ involved.

> Maybe there is, but any agreement involving exclusive
> rights need involve written signatures.

While that is certainly true, it's also true that if a coder modifies Nym's existing code, or a builder creates an area based on Nym's original theme, they will be creating derivative works. And - while the coder/builder will still retain the full copyright (and exclusive rights) to their own work - they will also be restricted by whatever conditions granted them the right to create those derivative works.

Thus non-exclusive rights should more than suffice.

What we were hoping for as far as builders went is similar to what many magazines do. We were hoping to essentially gain all rights to one written piece. What they write before or after that is up to the author whether it has to do with our environment or not, but we want that one piece they submitted to the mud to stay with the mud.

The problem we are facing with the code is we believe it is too restrictive to ask a coder to only provide us with code that they have never used, or will never use again. It's ridiculous quite frankly. We are uncertain how we can protect an individual's piece of code during development, and still release under the GPL later on. I know we can do it if each contributor is still working on the mud when we go over to the GPL, but things happen and that is never a cetainty. Let me see if I can break down better exactly what we are looking for...

1.) Permit the original contributor to remain using their code in whatever manner they so desire.

2.) Protect each individual's contribution from being used by the other members of the team for projects outside of the mud prior to releasing the mud under the GPL.

3.) Protect the mud itself from having to strip code later or shutting down due to contributed materials.

4.) Ensure the code does not leak before the majority of the members feel it has been adequately tested for release.

5.) The right to release the mud itself to the general public once the majority of the team members have voted for release of the mud.

We thought about going with non-exclusive rights, but I've been told that would not allow us to alter material as may be needed, or to release the material to the general public later on. We were also concerned about seeing material contributed to the mud used elsewhere with little or no chnage. Your ''All Original Areas'' are no longer all original once they start showing up in other places.

We probably wouldn't even release most of the areas to the public later on either. Probably just a couple so people can get a feel for the game systems and build their own world. Right now we don't know what we would, or would not include in the way of areas in a release. We are just trying to find a way to make certain the original contributor, and ourselves are protected when that time comes.

As a final note, we aren't worried about derivative works as far as story and environment goes. We are worried about non-derivative works. With the code, we want people to be able to use it in whatever way they want, but we also want to have some protection during development to ensure that the coders, and the mud are protected.

> We thought about going with non-exclusive rights, but
> I've been told that would not allow us to alter material
> as may be needed, or to release the material to the
> general public later on.

It depends entirely on what rights you've been granted - if the copyright holder grants you full non-exclusive rights, then of course you could alter and release the material.

> We were also concerned about seeing material contributed
> to the mud used elsewhere with little or no chnage.

Not much you can do about that I'm afraid. Either you let people use it, or you don't.

It depends entirely on what rights you've been granted - if the copyright holder grants you full non-exclusive rights, then of course you could alter and release the material.

I was going to respond to the earlier post because mine was IRT GPL. But the above is exactly what would be necessary to GPL a work at some future time (other than transferral or getting all exclusive rights which have been mentioned).

Non-exclusive rights obviously do not prevent the author(s) from granting rights to others nor in obtaining the rights from any of the other author(s) involved. But so what? Consider one of the bad things about exclusive rights. If the person(s) granted them lose interest or bail then everything to do with the project is totally useless crap unless those person(s) can be convinced to transfer all that IP to other parties (assuming they can even be found).

Thank you gentlemen. You have both been a huge help. I think you are right. Non-exclusive rights should suit our needs. We were never really worried about people using the code elsewhere. Our concern was with the environment.

I guess we don't really have anything to worry about. The environment might not be the most original, but areas and documentation would likely take a lot of reworking to fit into any other mud afterwards until the codebase is released to the public.

Do you all suppose it is unreasonable for us to refuse work done for other muds however? I don't mean code since code can be recyclced between muds and still have each mud maintain its own feel and balance. I'm talking about areas and documentation. Is it unreasonable to let people go if they attempt to submit an area being used elsewhere as long as they are informed prior to submitting the area that they will be let go and the area will not be used? Should we just not accept the area, and ask the person not to submit any more areas from elsewhere? Would it be better if we just consider it part of the submission process and turn it down with no other action taken?

We agree with you that what they do with contributions after they submit them to the mud is completely out of our hands, but we can refuse that someone submit story related content that they have previously used elsewhere or that is not the product of their own work. We feel that is not an unreasonable request as long as contributors of story related content are aware of the policy ahead of time.

Do you all suppose it is unreasonable for us to refuse work done for other muds however? I don't mean code since code can be recyclced between muds and still have each mud maintain its own feel and balance. I'm talking about areas and documentation.

I don't know how one could reasonably accept any submission where the submitter/author does not hold all copyrights regardless of whether it is code, areas or documentation; unless said areas, code or documentation are indeed public domain or under artistic license, new BSD, GPL, or similar.

I'd immediately remove anyone who submitted tainted code, areas or doc... (i.e. Diku )

I am not sure why you are drawing distinctions between code, areas, and documentation, because for purposes of copyright and legal discussion they are treated almost the same.

We were probably separating them because they are almost the same legally. The reason is actually because we are more worried about story content than other content. If someone was to use say the combat system before we released to the public, then it really wouldn't affect us in the long run. If the story content shows up elsewhere, it is harder for us to get maintain what makes the mud different. We are working out that it may not be that big of a deal since the mud will be a constantly growing and changing thing anyways.

Of course we would release individuals who was submitting content that they didn't own the rights to. What I was wondering was the thoughts of others on recieving submissions from contributors who owned the rights, but turning down those submissions if they have been used on another mud previously. We realize that code gets cycled and evolves all the time. We were more worried about the story content again.Should we just not accept the work, and go over again with the contributor why we weren't accepting the submission, or should we seriously consider letting the individual go since they were trying to submit material that the guidelines have already stated would not be acceptable?

Yes, I am talking about when the contributor owns full rights to a story related piece of material. The thing is we do not want story related material which has been used elswhere previously. Would it be too much for us to expect contributors of story content to not use previously created story content?

I realize that all this seems really drawn out, and that it probably appears that I am not taking what is said into consideration. I am. I am just asking more questions now rather than later to get as clear a picture as I possibly can before I change that part of the guidelines and put it back up for review for the rest of the admin. Thank you.

I am just asking more questions now rather than later to get as clear a picture as I possibly can before I change that part of the guidelines and put it back up for review for the rest of the admin.

As best I can tell the remaining questions and rest of the guidelines are not legal issues, though I could be wrong. They sound like fodder for the administration forum.

Thanks Tyche. That's what I thought as well. I think we can take the rest from here. You and Kavir have been great.

I would post the rest of the questions on the Administrator's board, but I feel you are right. They would just end up as fodder. It seems to be more questions of personal taste and views on things than legal matters, and we can't depend on others to decide how we feel. You really have been a big help.