[DGD] Software Licenses

[Mikael Lind]

Quoting Noah Lee Gibbs from 02:13, 2002-01-14:

>   Right.  Which is why I say the server source is "already
> available", not "Open Source".  I guess the MUDLib couldn't be
> technically Open Source unless it could be distributed as a
> binary.  Maybe as a state dump?
>   But no, I just meant that Open Source licenses fail to address
> the needs of a MUDLib since the binary form is almost never
> distributed anyway. [...]

I do not believe that software must be available in binary form in
order to be Open Source software. I will most likely release my
mudlib project as Open Source, once I get anywhere. ;D

To me, Open Source licenses seem good enough fits for mudlibs.

Quoting from http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html:

<quote>
2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is
not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized
means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable
reproduction cost [...]
</quote>

I admit that I only skimmed the definition now, though I have read it
before. And I certainly cannot recall any requirement to distribute
binaries.

// Mikael / Elemel

PS. Friends of the Open Source Initiative may also visit
http://www.osi.org/, for a laugh. :D

--
I embrace my desire to feel the rhythm / To feel connected enough to
step aside and weep like a widow / To feel inspired / To fathom the
power / To witness the beauty / To bathe in the fountain / To swing
on the spiral of our divinity and still be a human // Tool

_________________________________________________________________
List config page:  http://list.imaginary.com/mailman/listinfo/dgd