[MUD-Dev2] [BIZ] Unauthorised Publishing of My Work

[Lachek Butalek]

On 3/9/07, mud-dev-list at jaruzel.com <mud-dev-list at jaruzel.com> wrote:
> I've got a slight problem, and before I go rushing off to a solicitor, I
> thought I'd confer with you fellows as to what my options might be,
> being that most of you have published MMOG/MUD content containing IP
> created by you.
...
> Without a clear usage licence, I am unsure where I stand? Is this
> something I can or should challenge legally?

First off, IANAL.

Your source package contains no license file or readme file containing
the license. Your web download page lists the "restriction"
(attribution required if you intend on modifying the code) but in a
very informal way. Since the source package could have been downloaded
by someone with no intention of modifying the source, redistributed
around the web for a while, and finally ended up in the hands of the
author of "Build Your Own Games" who would have had no idea what (if
any) restrictions you placed on the code, you cannot claim that the
code was misused with malicious intent. Always, always, always
including the license file in your source package, and make removing
the license file from the source package a breach of the license.

Further, on the webpage you stated that you must be credited on the
logon screen of every implementation, given that the code is actually
modified. I haven't yet grepped through the code - do you include an
attribution to yourself in your code? If not, someone would have full
rights to *reprint* or *redistribute* your entirely unchanged code,
for profit if they so chose, without attributing you.

Even if they modified the code, as long as their code included some
attribution to you they would not be in the wrong even if they made
money off your code. As I haven't read the book, I don't know if your
name appears in the code listing or not, but even if it doesn't I
think you'll have a very hard time proving to a judge that you are
somehow owed recompense for the reprinting of your open sourced code
without attribution, when your license is so vaguely stated.

Big kudos to you for open sourcing your code, especially if you
consider it crappy. I wish more people would open their code instead
of letting it languish in obscurity because they're afraid it might
reflect poorly on them. To the contrary, others can learn your
techniques, learn from your mistakes, and perhaps even revive your
project.

It's too bad you got burnt. I suggest tacking on a Creative Commons -
Attribution, and perhaps Non-Commercial Use - license onto MUD32 right
now, and ensure it's described as such also *inside* the source
package. Next time you're considering licensing code under an Open
Source license, have a look at the OSI's non-comprehensive webpage of
existing licenses - you may as well use a boilerplate license since
they take away your own work and worry, often written by big legal
departments at major companies and are pretty much bulletproof.

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

Lachek