TbaMud license change

  • thomas
  • thomas's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
2 years 4 months ago #8804 by thomas
TbaMud license change was created by thomas
As some of you may be aware, the CircleMUD code has been relicensed under LGPL.

We are currently in the process of doing the same to the tbaMUD code.

But we need your help, the contributors over time, to let us know that you are ok with this.

A lot of the snippets we've added to the code base over time, has had no license terms, neither given outright or implied. We could just assume they were public domain, but I think the correct way to interpret them is to assume they follow the same license given by the original code, the CircleMUD license, unless otherwise stated.

So, please leave a comment on this post if you've contributed, letting us know that you're ok with changing the license for your intellectual property to the LGPL. Read more about it at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 4 months ago #8805 by cunning
Replied by cunning on topic TbaMud license change
I am fine with it, its only fair that what i gave/donated/mailer code over the many years is covered under this license

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 4 months ago #8809 by WhiskyTest
Replied by WhiskyTest on topic TbaMud license change
Absolutely yes

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 4 months ago #8811 by Papaya Pete
Replied by Papaya Pete on topic TbaMud license change
I suppose the question I have to ask is, "how does this effect me?" Would this mean posting my code so others could check it out?

I am not against this or anything. It is cool being able to share what we have worked on with othere. I just don't quite understand what changes exactly when this new license begins.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • thomas
  • thomas's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
2 years 4 months ago #8814 by thomas
Replied by thomas on topic TbaMud license change
The switch to LGPL means very little for you as a contributor to tbaMUD.

It matters a great deal for you as a user of the code base.

You are not required to expose your own code or content.

You can use your code for more things (specifically, the old license prohibit "any monetary gain", including donations to pay for servers, which has been a sore point with many DIKU and CIRCLE muds for many years).

Any snippets you put up on sites like this or on mailing lists will be LGPL unless you specify a more strict license (just like it's circle license today). Again, this means that others can use them in their own code bases with no problems.

For those of us who have been around for a while, the circle license has been somewhat of a limitation to the use of the circle derived mud code bases in larger projects. We've been limited by the wording of the license. A switch to a more general, open source, license like the LGPL has been a wish for a long time now.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 4 months ago #8820 by Parnassus
Replied by Parnassus on topic TbaMud license change
I think I read somewhere that, to a builder, this means that the areas will now become available for people to use in other bases than TBA since all parts of TBA will become open license. I don't know if this is true but if anybody wants stuff I write and are willing to keep my name on it and can figure out how it works enough to change it into another base, that's fine with me. Of course, chances are they'd do it no matter how TBA is licensed.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • thomas
  • thomas's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
2 years 4 months ago #8823 by thomas
Replied by thomas on topic TbaMud license change
This is actually only somewhat correct. There currently isn't any limit to taking an area from the mud distribution and plugging it into another mud. It's not even hard to do.

The change is that currently, if you do that, you can't make any monetary gain. The current license is based on the former DikuMUD license :

You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way. You may under no circumstances charge money for distributing any part of dikumud—this includes the usual $5 charge for 'sending the disk' or 'just for the disk' etc.

This means that it's not an open source license. Now we finally have a chance (because the DikuMUD license changed and the CircleMUD license changed after that) to make it - real - open source I think we should take it.

Yes, this means someone may take your area and use it on a mud. Has that not been the purpose all along? Now, though, they may be able to get donations to run the servers. To be frank, I hardly think any MUD is now popular enough to garner a higher return than that.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • thomas
  • thomas's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
2 years 4 months ago #8824 by thomas
Replied by thomas on topic TbaMud license change

thomas wrote: This means that it's not an open source license.


In case anyone wondered - this line in the definition of Open Source Software is not covered by the old license.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 3 months ago #9477 by krinosx
Replied by krinosx on topic TbaMud license change
Hi Guys, let me ask a thing.

If I modify the tbamud code and use it in my own 'fantastic super lucrative mud server', must I release my version of the code?

Its not clear to me if the LGPL is applied only to software redistribution of if its like the AGPL that enforce the code release even if I am just providing a service based in the library code.

If I am hosting a MUD Server, so I am not redistributing the code, in this way can I keep my changes to my private use?

Thanks in advance!

Kind Regards
Giuliano

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • thomas
  • thomas's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
2 years 2 months ago #9660 by thomas
Replied by thomas on topic TbaMud license change
LGPL means that if you convey an application based on LGPL license, you must expose the source code. In this context, convey means letting other people have your binaries. So we at tbaMUD feel this one. It is what we want.

However, the requirement does not extend to the case where your users are connecting to your code via a network. So your 'fantastic super lucrative mud server' would be safe as long as you are not selling it. And then, you'd only need to give the source to the people you're selling it to.

Actually, the GNU Affero General Public License (commonly called the AGPL) has this requirement. This is why we are not adapting that one.
The following user(s) said Thank You: krinosx

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
1 year 7 months ago #9831 by fungi
Replied by fungi on topic TbaMud license change
Out of curiosity, was any further progress made toward relicensing TbaMud? Per brief discussion on the CircleMUD ML a year or so ago, it seemed like the main blockers were going to be getting in touch with the "big patch" authors (particularly for ASCIII PFiles, DG Scripts, Oasis OLC...). Also I don't recall whether TBA incorporates any of the old Curious Areas Workshop content, but if so it didn't seem like there was much interest hope of relicensing that. Separating out content which isn't relicensed should be fairly trivial, so the C source code is presumably the first hurdle in this.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • thomas
  • thomas's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
1 year 7 months ago #9835 by thomas
Replied by thomas on topic TbaMud license change
Indeed, we made a push for it. However, we struggled to get in touch with the source code authors (who we were focusing on). The initiative has slowed somewhat - I'm busy at work, and I think the same goes for Rumble.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
1 year 6 months ago #9857 by ironfist
Replied by ironfist on topic TbaMud license change
I don't know how DG scripts could be licensed unless they got permission from Weis and Hickman or whoever for the rights to the death gate cycle name (if that is trademarked)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • thomas
  • thomas's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Administrator
  • Administrator
More
1 year 6 months ago #9858 by thomas
Replied by thomas on topic TbaMud license change
DG scripts isn't related to the Death Gate book cycle AT ALL. There's no mention of characters, places, setting or anything in the code. This is an example of overthinking it ;) While the setting in the actual mud they were originally developed for might be different, the script code has nothing to do with that setting.

Sharing a couple of letters in a title is not enough to make a claim of ownership or to have any say over distribution. Or I'd be a millionaire, since my last name has a couple of letters also found in Apple, inc.

And actually, that's one of the patches where we have been in touch with the author and gotten a positive response.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
1 year 6 months ago #9859 by fungi
Replied by fungi on topic TbaMud license change
Also if the DGScripts patch did for some reason include content which infringed on copyrights for the Death Gate cycle, that would be a problem for any MUD incorporating it regardless of software license. Thankfully it does not.

Further, there seems to be some confusion over copyrights and trademarks. They are both a sort of intellectual property (as are patents), but are not otherwise related. Copyright licenses are quite a separate thing from trademark licenses.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.259 seconds