[MUD-Dev] Proper liscense for MUD source? Perhaps not GPL... (fwd)

J C Lawrence claw at cp.net
Tue Dec 21 11:40:32 New Zealand Daylight Time 1999


On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:03:25 -0800 
Christopher Allen <ChristopherA at Skotos.net> wrote:

> Remember, our product is *NOT* intended to be open source -- our
> license to DGD at minimum would prevent us from doing that.

<<the licensing cat is out of the bag now!>>

You might like to review the archives of the BitKeeper Licensing
list at bitmover.com.  Similarly, he is not attempting an OpenSource 
license, and he shares some of your business concerns.

FWIW: I've been using BitKeeper for almost a year know both
professionally (Trillian, like Linux/PPC uses BitKeeper), and for my
own files (my entire home directory is under BK, all my projects are
under BK etc).  Good stuff.

> 2. TERMS OF USE AND DISTRIBUTION 

I would be tempted to split this into two licenses: one for
commercial users and one for non-commercial.  Review the discussions
on BKL in regard to the unrestricted admin license as versus the
base logging-enforced BKL license for soem of the arguments and
reasons why.

--
J C Lawrence                              Internet: claw at kanga.nu
----------(*)                            Internet: coder at kanga.nu
...Honorary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list