[MUD-Dev] Re: My vision for DevMUD

Caliban Tiresias Darklock caliban at darklock.com
Tue Nov 3 15:28:44 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Leonard <jleonard at divcom.slimy.com>
To: <mud-dev at kanga.nu>
Cc: Jon Leonard <jleonard at divcom.slimy.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:45 AM
Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: My vision for DevMUD

(I hate OutLook Express)

>On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 11:21:04AM -0500, Adam J. Thornton wrote:
>> 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.
>We've had at least one list member (ApplePiMan) state that anything
>than PD would probably keep him from reusing the code.  He also said that
>if he's lucky, he may be able to assign some (paid!) programmers to help.
>So I think the legalese should say "Steal this Code", but extra text should
>recommend (without legal force) that code modifications be contributed back
>to the project, attributions maintained, etc.

I've used a license on my own code releases in the past which basically says
"If you use this code, you are required to release some of your own code to
the programming community." I clarify in the license that it doesn't matter
how much of your code you release or what that code does or what language or
platform it's relevant to; GPL'd, PD, however you want to release it, just
release some code that other people can use. Other than that, you can do
whatever you want with my code provided you don't try to pretend you wrote
it or conceal the fact that I did.

So to the list membership in general, does that sound like the sort of
middle ground people are looking for? And specifically to ApplePiMan, how
would that sort of thing sit with you?

More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list