[MUD-Dev] Source Code Release

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 11 Feb 98 at 12:12, Greg Munt wrote:
> 
> This is something I've wanted to post on, for a number of weeks. My own 
> project will be shoving out all of the development docs onto the web: 
> specification, design, testing, etc. Shoving out the source code would be 
> a natural extension of this. BUT.
> 

It's not necessarily a "natural" extension.  Well maybe only natural in the
mud world.

> I am wary of what will happen to my code - what it will be used to create 
> - once I have made it available to the general public.
>

I don't see why one would need to release source code to get the advantages
you seek below...

Why not release the server as an executable.  I don't see why this wouldn't
be a suitable distribution for programmable servers ala LPs, MOOs, etc.
Even hard-coded servers can be released with portions in pre-compiled
libraries.

> Advantages:
> 
>   The potential of really widespread beta testing

Binaries can also widely beta tested.  

>   The potential of discussions about various elements of the 
>   specification, design or implementation being produced, which can only 
>   help the project. 
 
I don't see this being a source code issue.  It's more a question of 
documentation availability. 

>   Allowing people who can't or won't code, to be able to run something 
>   that they otherwise could not.

Again not a source code issue.
 
>   Potential design suggestions from these non-coders.

Again not a source code issue.

> Disadvantages:
> 
>   Code misused. Billions of exact replicas spring up everywhere. "Oh god, 
>   another stock X-MUD..." Bearing in my mind my strong aversion to this 
>   scenario, this is the main cause of my concern, really.

Advantage -> binary distribution with registration key...
Misuse or fair use?
 
>   Everyone can see how bad my code is. It's not that bad, honest.

Same for binary, except they note how often it crashes.

>   If, by some quirk of fate, it becomes a popular base, my mailbox will 
>   be bombarded with questions from clueless newbie admin. The result is 
>   what I call "Re: George Reese".

Same for binary.  Perhaps a bigger disadvantage unless one is wise enough
to trap exceptions and create meaningful error reports and dumps.

>   If it becomes popular, and is misused, its name (and mine) will have a 
>   bad reputation.

Shrug.  You could include the proviso that was in the Sun Java contract.
The one about not using the code to produce chemical, biological or nuclear 
weapons.  ;)

> 
>   It's not a legal requirement to follow the distribution license. Even 
>   if it was, could I really afford to sue thousands of people (presuming 
>   the code became popular)? And would I want to attract the inevitable 
>   negative publicity to myself and the game, through such legal actions? 
>   (See: TSR)

Certainly binaries can be cracked and reverse engineered...yet licenses 
are more enforceable against the clueless in this area.  I don't see how
this relates to TSR, they never really engaged in any legal activities
with individuals.  It was also a much fuzzier issue than many software 
licenses.  Of course if add stuff relating to standards and responsibility 
of good mud administration into a distribution agreement your liable to get 
a similar negative popularity rather easily.



--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD     Internet:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\   "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato   /*\--