[MUD-Dev] Re: My vision for DevMUD
ApplePiMan at aol.com
ApplePiMan at aol.com
Wed Nov 4 01:00:01 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998
At 11/3/98 9:32 PM James Wilson (jwilson at rochester.rr.com) altered the
fabric of reality by uttering:
>On Tue, 03 Nov 1998, ApplePiMan at aol.com wrote:
>>I'm afraid if you want serious consideration from commercial users you'll
>>either have to go PD or a paid license. Anything else will be too scary
>>for corporate decision makers to risk their own and their employees'
>*blink* that didn't seem to stop commercial ventures from using BSD-license
>code. And what's to stop someone from saying, in the license, "You are hereby
>granted rights in perpetuity such that..."? Then there's no issue with
>someone switching licenses on you.
OK... so maybe I'm more paranoid than most. =) I'm no lawyer, so I'm not
sure if such "in perpetuity" phraseology would cover my concerns or not.
>I for one would not contribute anything without some sort of suitably
You can't *get* more communist than PD. =) By definition, *everyone* has
an equal claim to ownership of it, and nothing anyone can do can change
>I prefer LGPL as I have no interest in whether or not
>anything I do appeals to commercial entities, while I DO have an interest
>in keeping anything I write available + alive in a free form. (Trying to
>maximize the potential size of the Noosphere.)
PD assures availability and "free-ness" much more than LGPL or BSD. It
removes all restrictions on usage, and in doing so *ensures* anyone,
anywhere, can use it without any charge. What you "lose" with PD is that
there's no way to ensure the original author gets proper credit and no
way for the author to control who uses it for what purpose. If those two
issues are vitally important to the author, a license of some sort is
required. But if the true issue is availability of the source material
and ensuring there is no fee associated with its usage, PD is simpler to
maintain (there's no concept of "enforcement" on our part) and
accomplishes the goals better. Adding usage conditions and other
restrictions doesn't make you more communistic; it just narrows your
potential userbase. =)
>But this is one of the good aspects of a modular system - I can decide on
>for my modules which suit me, and others can decide on terms for their own
>modules. (I believe Linux is composed of a patchwork of code, some PD, some
>BSD, some GPL.) If you're not comfortable with LGPL, don't use those modules.
Exactly. And if DevCore and the basic set of modules to support it don't
have a license I'm comfortable with, I won't use those either. I feel
certain that wouldn't spell the end of either DevMUD or my own plans. But
I believe this whole discussion started out of trying to come up with a
license for the core that the fewest number of people would feel
uncomfortable with. PD is a *clear* winner, as far as that goes (IMNSHO).
>I assume I'm probably a bit further to the left than the norm, tho...
>being RMS, rightmost being Bill).
As with most things, I tend to be centrist (though in this one issue I
appear to be left of you, actually, in that I *truly* want communal
ownership of the code). PD, LGPL, BSD and proprietary each have
situations where they are appropriate. To me, it seems clear that PD is
the right choice for DevCore and the minimal support modules.
Rick Buck, President and CEO <mailto:rlb at big-i.com>
Beyond Infinity Games, Inc.
See you in The Metaverse! <http://www.big-i.com>
More information about the MUD-Dev