[DGD] Idea for copyrighted yet publicly usable mudlibs

[Noah Gibbs]

  This is fundamentally just a closed-source but publicly usable lib.  Which is
fine, but it's basically just that you're compiling it for DGD rather than,
say, x86.  Your suggestion of making it partially closed-source has also been
done.

  That's not saying it's a bad idea.  It could be a good idea for the right
people.  But yeah, this is a lot like the 'security' of releasing your MUDlib
precompiled to x86, and has a lot of the same pitfalls.

--- Steve Wooster <s.f.m.wooster+dgd at gmail.com> wrote:

>     You know how the people who wrote the DIKU code had a ton of people 
> use their mudlib but not give credit for it? It occurred to me that 
> releasing a mudlib via DGD statedumps maybe provide a reasonable 
> solution for that, allowing you to make it difficult for the average joe 
> to alter core sections of your mudlib. You could make something like the 
> kernal-lib where there's a certain core/kernal that can't be touched by 
> normal code, and make it so that upon connection, some message like 
> "FoobarLIB v1.23 created by John Smith." is displayed to the user 
> regardless of what the mudlib code says.
> 
> Some possible pitfalls:
> 
> This assumes that connections would be opened via telnet... a copyright 
> message could screw up other protocols, preventing your mudlib from 
> using them.
> 
> Nobody's perfect, so your mudlib would need updates/patches. You could 
> make it so that the core code can load patch files and alter its own 
> code. To prevent people from using the patching ability to alter core 
> code, you could make your code check digital signatures for any patches.
> 
> Somebody who knows what they're doing could still bypass all your 
> "security". Perhaps they could alter the mud's config-file to use 
> different driver/auto objects. Or they could recompile DGD to add a copy 
> of find_object() under a new name. Or if they really wanted to get 
> technical, they could alter the statedump. Still, I imagine the sorts of 
> people who know how to do that could write their own mudlib just fine... 
> though I guess they could release a "cracked" version of the mudlib to 
> the general public.
> 
> Heh, I guess it's probably more work than it's worth, and easier just to 
> release the mudlib as public domain. Still, for credit-seeking people, 
> this might be viable.
> 
> -Steve Wooster
> 
> __________________________________________
> http://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com