[MUD-Dev] Source Code Release

[Jon A. Lambert]

On 14 Feb 98 at 5:38, Greg Munt wrote:
> 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:
> > 
> > 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?

Hrrmm.  This question has plagued the software industry since its 
inception.  If you are seeking renumeration, then release of source might
not be the best tactic, unless you have the resources to pursue violations.
Most shareware is released in binary form.  Some shareware authors do
provide source at extra cost.
       
> > > > 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? 

Controlled distribution to some extent.  Those registering the software
could be added to mailing lists, automated distribution of bug fixes, 
newsletters, etc.  If they can't bother to register, should you bother
to support them or even answer questions?

Hmmm, I think this might have some potential if developed correctly.   
It might improve the quality of the support, no?

> 
> 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.)

While I don't know the specifics involved, a casual observation makes it 
seem to be very common.  Most all of the Linux tools are distributed in 
binary format.  I ran Linux for some time and never had any need or desire 
to re-compile X-windows, G++, its libraries, Flex, Yacc, Diff, etc... Maybe 
there IS a reason mud servers don't qualify for this treatment.  I really 
don't know.

> 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...)

<offtopic disclaimer - nonspecifically to anyone>
I really REALLY don't have strong feelings one way or another towards any
platform, whether it be Mac, *nixs, BeOS, Amiga, Win, whatever.  I have 
personal preferences (UI and comfort) and technical reasons for every 
little piece of software I use.  I run quite a blend of *nix utilities, 
NT, DOS and even mainframe ports.  

I don't take much stock in the opinions of software engineers/programmers 
who have "political or moral" objections to running a given OS (at least in 
regard to that OS).  But then I do like to tickle and taunt the Unix 
support group on RGMA on occasion just for grins and giggles.  :P   
I won't do that here because it serves no meaningful purpose. 

For server development its probably only of marginal interest to those
planning commercial muds with many hundreds or thousands of users.  
I run NT and have found NO limitations or technical difficulties with it, 
despite recently posted anecdotes to the contrary.  Nobody should worry
themselves sick over it (unless one can firmly establish that BG is indeed
the Antichrist).  

It does come into play often when we discuss clients.  A client author who 
has a strong hatred of the "majority" of their users' platforms or browsers 
is going to have a bit of trouble designing and implementing something 
worthwhile and valuable for them.   All the huffing and puffing won't 
change the winfact that your gonna have mostly winusers hanging off your 
sockets.  This also applies to Java clients.  So if you are developing 
custom clients better lie back and enjoy the ride or find your audience
seriously limited. 
</offtopic disclaimer>

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