[MUD-Dev] Source Code Release

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 13 Feb 98 at 16:24, Greg Munt wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Well, if you have the general specification, functional specification, 
> design and testing procedures documented and online, the only thing 
> missing is the source. Therefore my conclusion that having the source 
> (and therefore ALL products of the development cycle) online would be a 
> natural extension.

I guess I would point to Sun's Java again.  Most everything you 
describe is freely available on-line or downloadable with the exception of 
the source.  The VM source is obtained through a licensing fee.  (and there 
are many other examples - mostly from the Mac/Win/DOS/OS2 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.
> 
> Hmm. Maybe. I don't see how hard-coded servers fit into this, though. Who 
> would want a binary, when the source for umpteen other servers is widely 
> available? Are there many commercial organisations providing pay-muds, 
> where the development is done by a third party?

Actually there are 3 or 4 I've seen, Ursha Null comes to mind.  And some
supporting software like RIPtel.  Most of these products get laughed or 
heckled off usenet, primarily because the authors seek renumeration and
don't release sources.  Many of these products originate from "muds" which 
sprung up in the US & Canadian BBS networks, which needless to say, are 
dying rather rapidly. There are quite a few BBS sysops who have gotten into 
the small ISP business and as a result some crossover is occurring.  The 
release philosophy in the BBS/micro world has long been the shareware (ASP) 
concept, while the release philosophy on the internet seems to be 
mostly the Gnu GPL (FSF) concept.  I come from this world also, as I was a 
BBS sysop for many years, and I still have mixed feelings of shock and 
guilt when it comes to using "free software with source code!". 

Hard-coded servers can be distributed with parts of them contained in
binary lib distributions, if, ahem, IF, they are designed with an eye to 
modularity.  That is, the low level parts that won't need modification by
99% of implementors are packaged as object code.  Sockets code, DB and 
I/O code come to mind as good candidates.  So, no, I don't think DIKU Gamma
could be distributed this way, since an active and industrious implementor
would have to edit every single source file at one time or another.  DIKU
Gamma is by no means modular..

Another example comes to mind to which I think you nixphiles can relate to. 
Freely distributed Motif applications with all the source, which are 
largely useless without Motif.  As server author you supply the Motif 
or "mud guts" part.

> ["Not a source code issue" assertions, most of which I agree with]
>  
> > > 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?
> 
> I don't believe anyone would pay to register for a mud, when so many 
> sources are widely available.
> 

Forcing one to register the mud via a software key need not entail 
any demand for money.  

> > 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.  ;)
> 
> Are Microsoft keeping to this contract? :)

I could find no trace of this proviso in Sun's JDK 1.1.5 license?  Believe 
me, it WAS in 1.1.2 and earlier!!  I guess Sun found some reason to drop 
it.

--
--/*\ 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   /*\--