[MUD-Dev] Re: My vision for DevMUD

[Jon Leonard]

On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 11:21:04AM -0500, Adam J. Thornton wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 08:25:53PM +1100, Thandor wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 1998 at 12:20:57AM -0800, Jon Leonard wrote:
> > > 2) The licence should by default be public domain.  This provides the least
> > >    impediments to using the code for experimentation.  Allowing some modules
> > >    with different licenses is useful for reusing existing code.
> > Hmm, I would argue that a LGPL style license where people are "forced" to
> > contribute back should they make changes would be of more benefit if the
> > goal is to learn from this experiment. I say LGPL because this leave no
> > barriers to someone using the modules and linking them with their own to
> > make a commercial product. That seems to me to be a more logical way of
> > doing things, but I could be wrong. :)
> 
> I don't like either of these and prefer something in the middle.  LGPL is
> much too restrictive, but PD isn't restrictive enough, since it doesn't
> necessarily keep a record of the code's past ownership.
> 
> There's got to be a middle ground.  From what I remember about the Artistic
> License I liked it a lot.  Something along the lines of "do what you want
> with it, but document how you changed it after you got it, and don't take
> anyone's name off of it."
> 
> If these were the only two choices I'd go for PD, though.

We've had at least one list member (ApplePiMan) state that anything stricter
than PD would probably keep him from reusing the code.  He also said that
if he's lucky, he may be able to assign some (paid!) programmers to help.

Even if his business ventures don't work out the way we'd like, I think
that's still a good indication that stricter licences would limit the
audience for our code.

So I think the legalese should say "Steal this Code", but extra text should
recommend (without legal force) that code modifications be contributed back
to the project, attributions maintained, etc.

Contributors are welcome to submit things under different licenses.  They
just run the risk of having them rewritten, or possibly ignored if the
license is obnoxious enough.

Jon Leonard