[MUD-Dev] Re: My vision for DevMUD

Jon A. Lambert jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com
Tue Nov 3 14:12:20 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998


> From: Adam J. Thornton <adam at phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
> Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: My vision for DevMUD
> 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.
> 

I would like to voice my support for PD over any licensing scheme 
that contains a G in it's acronym.  I agree with Adam that it is
far too restrictive.  I find the middle ground of a license that has a B 
in it's acronym to be acceptable also.    :)  

--
Jon Lambert
  

 




More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list