A bit of a derail, but I think it's important for IRE to maintain that clause in the TOS, and also selectively enforce it at the same time.
Things like Vadi's system, which is a lot of work (IRE volunteers would know that, of all people) to maintain, are also things that will simply not be spread around if there's no compensation for it from the users. And the users understand that as well, which is exactly why they are willing to compensate Vadi for building and maintaining the system. While it violates the TOS, closing an eye and letting it be will alleviate a lot of pressure for a server-side curing systems and the sort, as well as encouraging player retention.
Things like commissions for art are also a cultural activity that promotes community interaction and generates buzz about the game, which is positive for building reputation, image and even immersion. Closing an eye to those are also positive for the game in the long run.
Whereas other things like taking bardics (even ones you wrote) and selling them as a published book are definitely things that should be forced to get IRE's permission or oversight from the get-go.
Now, if Vadi was unwillingly forced to give up on m&m, that would be akin to shooting themselves in their own foot. But if Vadi was gifting his code to the community because of his own reasons, and IRE stepped in to prevent others from using Vadi's code for their own gain, I think it's fine. It's an important clause for IRE to reserve the right to protect their own interests, and through the years of playing, I haven't seen them use it in a way as to stifle their own users (and thereby chase away their own customers) yet.
When you have open source code, you need a way to make sure it maintains good code quality. This is done by (a strange term IMO) a pull request (which should really be called a merge request)
My feelings around it are that it should be okay if it's credits, which most things seem to be (that I've seen at least).
I guess in part it's... well if it's credits then IRE got some money, the buyer got something they wanted or needed, and the seller gets more credits to use in the game. If it's a direct money transfer then it's different, IRE doesn't earn any money unless the seller decides to spend that money on the game. In one way everyone receives a benefit, the other only two of the three?
Comments
This might help to understand it better (It may also make it more confusing):
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/pullrequest