Another question whether PocketMine-MP itself is affected by Minecraft EULA

It had always been a very controversial topic in Korea, or maybe globally, so I want clarification for this question. Of course, I had seen most of the threads which are talking about this topic and the answer for all the time was 'PocketMine-MP itself is not subject to EULA but connecting the server with Minecraft client will make user affected.'
But in one of the most largest Korean Minecraft community, there is an argument that 'PocketMine itself is surely subject to EULA.' They pointed out that PocketMine uses unique names such as 'Creeper', gameplay experience, and logic that the server handle its elements. So in this example, 'Creeper' is name that is created by Mojang, so they are claiming that the software using "intellectual property" of Mojang must be subject to EULA according to "what we have made" thing, thus making PocketMine-MP subject to EULA.

So far I have seen claiming that PocketMine-MP itself is not subject to EULA, so I am curious about your opinions about the construe above.

 

‘Creeper’, ‘mob’, and other names is entities in Minecraft cannot be claimed as intellectual property by Mojang due to the lack of definition in Pocketmine.
The code for the mobs doesn’t even existin the core at all and PocketMine itself is only hosting servers using the UDP protocol with data aligned in the order Mojang dictates. Mojang or even Microsoft cannot claim something undefined as intellectual property not an open source protocol, so the EULA does not apply.

 

Thank you for your replies, the term "intellectual property" is just forwarded text what they said. I think the focus is that PocketMine is using whatever Mojang has made. According to EULA, there is a statement says:

They claim that "anything else we've made" must include Mojang's brand, character, how you play game, and etc. For "how you play game", they are saying that PocketMine implements "how you play game" thus PMMP is subject to EULA.

 

Okay, I made a mistake to use the word intellectual property. Please forget that. The point is the boundary of "we've made" from EULA targets for. People who are claiming that PocketMine is subject to EULA argues that PocketMine at least partially implement the gameplay feature which was created by Mojang. This 'gameplay feature' literally includes 'anything' makes Minecraft enjoyable. Though Mojang could not patent for all its gameplay style, possibly there is part where Mojang could claim their right. Also there is item or entity that is uniquely existing in Minecraft, therefore according to "we've made" condition, anything using its mechanism or name must be affected by EULA.

For Minecraft video, there is an exception that Mojang made. Take a look at: https://www.mojang.com/2014/06/lets-talk-server-monetisation/. It says "There has been one exception to this rule so far - Minecraft videos." Minecraft video is what they 'specifically agree to'.

And to be clear, what I've wrote above is mostly translation and my interpretation of what they(who is arguing that PocketMine is subject to EULA) said. If needed, I can provide you the full translation of the original thread. I have known so far that PocketMine is not subject to EULA, but I am bit confused to see the opposite opinion of this controversy.

I am curious if it is completely nonsense to claim that the "we've made" thing include its entity name such as 'Creeper' and unique gameplay style of Minecraft. Plus reason if possible.

And also there is one new point: even if PocketMine isn't affected by EULA, the server running with PocketMine is always affected by EULA because it is hard to say PocketMine could exist without Minecraft. We can hardly find PocketMine servers asserting we are not Minecraft server.