[MUD-Dev] Source Code Release

[Greg Munt]

On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:

> 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:
> > 
> > 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) 

What stops people who have obtained the source through a license, by 
distributing the source to friends/associates, and through them, 
propogated throughout the world?
  
> > > 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.  

What is the point of registration, then? 

An additional point that I would like to make, is that binaries must have 
access to the exact same libraries that were available when it was 
compiled. This includes the same *version*, as well. (I have encountered 
this probem before, on Linux. Perhaps I am doing something wrong 
somewhere; releasing Linux binaries is not unknown, after all.)

> > > 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.

You will find that a large reason for the dislike of Microsoft and Gates 
is not for the quality of its products, but for an aversion to its market 
dominance (one is tempted to label it a monopoly enforced by the free 
market), and for its business practices - which, whilst (mostly) legal, 
have turned many people away from them. (This would seem to be a case of 
parts of society rejecting pure capitalism...)

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