[DGD] retry: poll

[Shentino]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:43 AM, <bart at wotf.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:35:00 -0500, Par Winzell wrote
>
> <snip some stuff>
>
> > > never speak to each other again.
> >
> > Boys, please.
>
> Taken off-list, just wanted to say sorry to the rest of you for my earlier
> annoyed response to Shentino, it shouldn't have been on the list either.
> I'll
> try to be more careful with that.
>
> I would however like to clarify my original question, just to make sure
> everyone understands what I am asking exactly.
>
> First the background:
>
> I am going to split the network package in a kernel and driver part. This
> is a
> given, and motivated by Dworkin seperating the driver and kernel as well,
> not
> to mention that it makes life a bit easier for me.
>
> My question concerns how exactly I will deal with the kernel part.
>
> Option 1
>
> Take the current code, update it to kernel lib 1.3, and leave it there.
> This
> would first of all serve as an example. Code would be available under the
> current license (essentially the dgd license)
>
> Option 2
>
> Redevelop the kernel lib part based on the current kernel library 1.3. This
> code can be public domain, and could serve a lot more purposes as a result.
>
> Obviously, option 2 is much more time consuming, and I am only going to do
> this if I find there is sufficient interest in using a network enabled
> version
> of the kernel library.


Naturally I lean towards usefulness, and not handcuffing yourself license
wise for the future.  But effort wise I'm not sure if it's worth it.

Personally, I'm not sure how a modified klib that is NOT public domain would
play when interacting with the various licenses of other mudlibs, such as
gurba, melville, or even phantasmal.

If part of the klib can be under the DGD license in spite of being purely on
the LPC side, then I'm not sure where a mudlib that uses it would lie.

I'm sure felix could clarify on if, barring direct code derivation, the
LPC/driver barrier is a license boundary.  Honestly, I figured it was clear
cut that anything LPC side is not bound by the DGD license.

>
>
> Bart
> --
> Created with Open WebMail at http://www.bartsplace.net/
> Read my weblog at http://soapbox.bartsplace.net/
>
> ___________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>