[MUD-Dev] Proper liscense for MUD source? Perhaps not GPL... (fwd)
rsinha at glue.umd.edu
Tue Dec 21 00:17:55 New Zealand Daylight Time 1999
I personally do not like the license proposed from a
"buyer"'s point of view. However, that is my business, I vote by choosing
another server. I cannot agree that it is "immoral" or "wrong" to use
this license however, as any developer that releases source code is
inherently doing the "buyer" a favor, or at least providing a service that
is not an intrisic right, but rather a purchasing point
the vast majority of software I use is GPL/LGPL/BSD.
I do choose OSD-compliant software above non-complaint to use, but that is
due to personal preference of the pragmatic benefits this provides, not
some feeling of entitlement or intrinsic right.
On Mon, 20 Dec 1999, J C Lawrence wrote:
<snip: much regarding parameters of proposed license>
> Translation: Enforced public speech. To an extent you are demanding
> that all efforts which touch this product are effectively done "in
> the public interest" or at least, "freely available to public
> scrutiny" at the source level.
> If you do anything, and you let anyone else see it, you *HAVE* to
> let everyone see it.
> Outside of the fact that this violates the OpenSource definition (as
> does the GPL arguably enough), many will find it excessively
> invasive for development purposes, time-to-market, press control,
> etc. The 6 month time lag doesn't fix this as it merely attempts to
> hide the problems by providing an alibi that most can escape under
> without addressing the central concern.
fine, so make it specific; iow this does not need to be a General license,
it can go into the minutiae, eg after x users then release;
if they find it invasive, then they can go elsewhere.
> My view? I take the side of free speech. A pivotal quality of
> "free speech" is the freedom to communicate only when one wishes to.
> (FWLIW reading the supreme court's arguments on the State's right to
> mandate its citizen's speech is more than revealing) You are
> suggesting the removal of that freedom by mandating compulsive
> speech without giving anything back to me for the loss of that
> "right" -- something not even the State (in most of the Western
> World) does.
we are protected from the State due to the coercive power of the state; I
cannot force you to use my mud code. If you want to, that is your
business, follow my rules as it is mine. I am giving something back;
indeed primary exchange of value is from me to you. I give you use of a
mud codebase, you agree any changes you make I can reincorporate (and
> Contracts, and licenses, need to practice fair exchange -- to give
> as much as they take.
no this is not the case; no contracts are invalidated on grounds of being
"unfair". You sign, you buy.
> My source is mine. Period. I choose the license I use for
> releases. (I presume that you've read Linus' statements on this
> area? If not see the Linux Kernel or BitKeeper License list
> archives) That license may be affected or even defined by the
> license on the code I started with, but whether or not I release,
> and when and how, are my decisions, and nobody elses.
bullshit, when you use someone else's work, you are bound by their
wishes, hence why FSF requires all submitters to give their copyrights to
the FSF in writing...
> > I'd like to forward the idea of a liscense where making the mud
> > publicly available for play requires the source code for the mud
> > to be available.
> For the purposes of this license, how do you distinguish between
> server source (say socket handling) and softcode (defines the game
> world)? How about the case where there is no soft code -- the
> entire MUD is written in the C/Java whatever and there is no
> LPC/ColdC/TinyCode equivalent? How about the other side, where the
> hard coded kernel is very small, offering some basic network socket
> handling and a soft-code langauge atop which everything else is
> built (ala CoolMUD. PerlMOO, etc)?
simple; if has a single line of my code in it, it is under my license.
You don't like, use someone else's code.
yes, for small things this is hard to prove (there is a reason why the
burden of proof is on me) but if you copy something large, I can tell...
> > Presumably a well designed code base would allow the bulk of the
> > game to reside in data files not covered by the liscense, which
> > would prevent people from copying and stealing entirely someone
> > else's game.
> This is not even close to a given.
no but it is a purchasing point... do not use a codebase that will cause
the balance of rights must be weighted towards the creator; it is his
> > If a server were released under these conditions, do you think it
> > would be successful?
> Please define "success" first.
meet the stated objective of apprehending code forks.
Computer Science/ Government,
University Of Maryland College Park
AIM: qui dire ICQ: 9738191 (301)935-5542
MUD-Dev maillist - MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev