[MUD-Dev] Quake II has gone GPL

[Nicholas E. Walker]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 02:03:34AM -0800, Jeremy Noetzelman wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Noplex wrote:
 
>> Yes, but again, the Torque engine (Tribes 2) is alot better than
>> Quake 2 (in some areas) the license restrictions would probably
>> push people away, Quake 2 is GPL, Torque has it's own license.
 
> Without opening up the licensing ball of wax, I'd argue that for
> MUD projects the GPL is quite a poor choice, due to the 'open
> code' restrictions.  I certainly wouldn't want every player to see
> the guts of the client I distribute, as that allows them to do bad
> things much easier than if they don't have source code.

One crux of free software is community review.  I would want every
player to be able to see the guts of the client I distribute, as
that allows them to do good things much [more easily] than if they
don't have the source code.

If someone does bad things with the client, it means that I have
made a mistake: I have given too much control to the client (or, the
location of where things are stored and processed is wrong in at
least one case).

Someone may do good things with the client: if the code is open,
there is a bug, everyone can cheat.  So, the good someone tells you
and you fix the problem.  Or you review your design.

You may actually stand a chance of helping some other people learn
how to work on their own projects, too, if you let them read and use
your code.  The GPL requires (just say "encourages") them to give
the same gift to whoever uses their project.

Regardless of licensing issues, you're not -really- a fan of
security through obscurity, are you?

--
Nicholas E. Walker <new at gnu.org>

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev