Oh, and to make my position completely clear on the spirit of the license:
Everquest: Meh. Okay. Gimme some $$$ and I'll be happy, if we can re-negotiate the license with the founders. Farmville: NO. NEVER. DIE IN A FIRE.
19 Jan, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
I'd probably start with a clean license like BSD or Artistic, and then add restrictions atop it to prevent the kinds of uses you dislike. You can't use GPL, because additional restrictions are incompatible with the GPL (which is actually why you can't use GPL code in a DikuMUD).
Like I've said, I can't choose my license. The majority of my code base in the end will be original, but there is no question as it is now, it is Diku derived, and therefore, whether provable or not, will always be a Diku derived work.
Were I starting from complete scratch, I would certainly choose a different license, but that is not an option now.
I simply was looking for hosting options that were agnostic to this.
Thanks to Arendjr for suggesting Github, I'll look into that.
Well, I don't agree with your limitations but I suggest you add your own license in addition to the diku one, and make it more ironclad in the restrictions. Even if there's confusion about the diku license you should be able to have them (if they're ethical) follow your license if it's unambiguous, even if it overlaps with the diku license in some areas.
So instead of basing it on Diku and now suddenly having to take their copyright; you could base it off of something more open. Could be fun to see a mud that supported latex! lol that would almost be hilarious to see. hmmm
However, I copied the idea of using embedded color codes in game text files to do ANSI color encoding and therefore I claim I am a derivative work based on that.
Though just a thought. Diku isn't the only one that uses embedded color codes … So instead of basing it on Diku and now suddenly having to take their copyright; you could base it off of something more open.
Their seems to be some confusion about copyright here. You can't copyright an idea or system. Software copyright protects an implementation.
27 Jan, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 27th comment:
However, I copied the idea of using embedded color codes in game text files to do ANSI color encoding and therefore I claim I am a derivative work based on that.
Though just a thought. Diku isn't the only one that uses embedded color codes … So instead of basing it on Diku and now suddenly having to take their copyright; you could base it off of something more open.
Their seems to be some confusion about copyright here. You can't copyright an idea or system. Software copyright protects an implementation.
I didn't say any-who about copyright.
I flat out said I was a derivative work. As an author of the new code, this carries some small amount of weight. In fact, I artificially claimed I was derivative by using something so simple as color codes. Even though I did change the prefix character.
The point is, whether I want to be or not, I will always be a derivative work. Arguing about the semantics of that was not my point in starting this thread.
Finding a suitable hosting site that will accept MUD source code under this license was…
It's really nice to see people like this in our community. One of the reasons the diku team left is because credit wasn't given. Here, someone is trying to find reasons why their codebase is linked to diku. I admire and respect you. Wave the Diku flag if that is what you want! I have never had a problem with it.
I flat out said I was a derivative work. As an author of the new code, this carries some small amount of weight. In fact, I artificially claimed I was derivative by using something so simple as color codes. Even though I did change the prefix character.
My post was a side-effect of not having your explanation later what you were going for. I started typing my post, did a few google searches to make sure I wasn't totally off beat, then hit post. By that time your explanation for your goal was different. My point was if the reason your holding onto the derivation was ONLY because of the color coding, then you could derive that section of your code from something else which has a different license.
But if you feel your program as a whole is derived from diku. Then describing how you rewrote everything, changed everything, is a mute point and should never have been brought up to start with.
However, I copied the idea of using embedded color codes in game text files to do ANSI color encoding and therefore I claim I am a derivative work based on that.
Though just a thought. Diku isn't the only one that uses embedded color codes … So instead of basing it on Diku and now suddenly having to take their copyright; you could base it off of something more open.
Their seems to be some confusion about copyright here. You can't copyright an idea or system. Software copyright protects an implementation.
I didn't say any-who about copyright.
I flat out said I was a derivative work. As an author of the new code, this carries some small amount of weight. In fact, I artificially claimed I was derivative by using something so simple as color codes. Even though I did change the prefix character.
The point is, whether I want to be or not, I will always be a derivative work. Arguing about the semantics of that was not my point in starting this thread.
Finding a suitable hosting site that will accept MUD source code under this license was…
It certainly is legal semantics. Obviously I wouldn't want the casual reader to come away with notion that copying ideas makes a work derivative.
I haven't the slightest clue why anyone would want to credit the Diku team for this. They may even be offended by the notion that they put colors in DikuMud. Because they didn't.
Why credit the Diku / Circle team? Because my MUD is running inside a hosting MUD framework which is stripped down to bare bones of input / output, yet that still exists in a C codebase which was cloned from Circle, and thus Diku. So the license deserves respect, and one of the aspects of the license is crediting the authors. This I do not have a problem with.
I am a huge fan of credits, despite not being picky if someone takes some of my work without creditting me.
Something I added to my credits which I really feel does not get enough love, is the influence Dungeons and Dragons have had on the code. It appears massive chunks of the system are replicated without a lot of MUDs giving any due credit. And this is before any OGL too.
So this is for you DnD, *pours some of his coffee on the ground*
28 Jan, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
I really feel does not get enough love, is the influence Dungeons and Dragons have had on the code.
On stock codebase otherwise…not so much anymore. Except if eveything that use stats and diceroll is considered influenced by DnD by you.
I am a huge fan of credits, despite not being picky if someone takes some of my work without creditting me.
Something I added to my credits which I really feel does not get enough love, is the influence Dungeons and Dragons have had on the code. It appears massive chunks of the system are replicated without a lot of MUDs giving any due credit. And this is before any OGL too.
So this is for you DnD, *pours some of his coffee on the ground*
Umm.. I'd be a little careful treading there. If you follow this path to its logical conclusion, pretty soon Wizards of the Coast is gonna end up owning ur MUD and you'll be forced to spam users with advertisements for "Magic.. The Gathering."
Everquest: Meh. Okay. Gimme some $$$ and I'll be happy, if we can re-negotiate the license with the founders.
Farmville: NO. NEVER. DIE IN A FIRE.