[MUD-Dev] Source Code Release

[Greg Munt]

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 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?

["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.
  
> 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? :)

> 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.

Yes. Definitely. It would also be hopeless to enforce. If I did include 
anything akin to this, it would be no more than very strong encouragement.
(And then, only if they were in the free sector.)

--
Greg Munt, greg at uni-corn.demon.co.uk; http://www.uni-corn.demon.co.uk/ubiquity/
"Deliver yesterday, code today, think tomorrow."