[MUD-Dev] Re: My vision for DevMUD
Adam J. Thornton
adam at phoenix.Princeton.EDU
Tue Nov 3 11:21:04 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998
On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 08:25:53PM +1100, Thandor wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 12:20:57AM -0800, Jon Leonard wrote:
> > 2) The licence should by default be public domain. This provides the least
> > impediments to using the code for experimentation. Allowing some modules
> > with different licenses is useful for reusing existing code.
> Hmm, I would argue that a LGPL style license where people are "forced" to
> contribute back should they make changes would be of more benefit if the
> goal is to learn from this experiment. I say LGPL because this leave no
> barriers to someone using the modules and linking them with their own to
> make a commercial product. That seems to me to be a more logical way of
> doing things, but I could be wrong. :)
I don't like either of these and prefer something in the middle. LGPL is
much too restrictive, but PD isn't restrictive enough, since it doesn't
necessarily keep a record of the code's past ownership.
There's got to be a middle ground. From what I remember about the Artistic
License I liked it a lot. Something along the lines of "do what you want
with it, but document how you changed it after you got it, and don't take
anyone's name off of it."
If these were the only two choices I'd go for PD, though.
adam at princeton.edu
"There's a border to somewhere waiting, and a tank full of time." - J. Steinman
More information about the MUD-Dev