29 Sep, 2010, Rudha wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
Heh, and people wonder why the GPL has copyleft provisions …. The amount of individual licenses reaches radiculous amounts.

Mudder: Id make sure you've read over all the licenses and made you're sure you're okay with the restricions they apply.; speaking from some experience, mud codebase authors can be infamously catty about that.

Maya/Rudha
29 Sep, 2010, Bobo the bee wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
The specific problem is that all the open source projects on Google Code can be used commercially.


I'm not sure that this is quite the case, as my quick looking over of Google Code's ToS's speaks of differentiating between an open-source project and a commerical project, but I do get the feel that Google Code is wanting to promote licenses that allow people to take a code, modify it to some limited extent, and be able to sell it. I did find this quote from them:
Google Code said:
In addition, we think that license proliferation is bad for the open source community, so we only allow a subset of licenses to be used on Google Code as a way of discouraging license proliferation. License proliferation means the creation and use of new OSS licenses that have no reason for existing. There are over 200 open source approved licenses, most of which are variants of existing licenses that do not add much value. This state of affairs makes compliance with open source licenses a nightmare because you can no longer simply rely on having a small number of licenses if you use open source libraries (in either an open source or a commercial product), but instead have to deal with mixing code from as many licenses as you use libraries. This is not just bad from a legal perspective, but it is a huge turnoff for people wanting to use and create open source. The licenses we have chosen cover the needs of 99% of our users, and our stand on license proliferation has actually helped to create a dialog about what licenses people should be using, and given us a chance to educate people about good license choice.


So, yeah, it doesn't sound like Google will want to host the DIKU or ROM licenses.
29 Sep, 2010, Davion wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Mudder said:
I can't find any olc license in the documentation at all. If there should be, let me know where I can get it and I'll quickly add it to mudbytes repository.


The remaining author of OLC has retroactively applied a condition to his license where you have to display credits in your greet screen (much like the way the Diku authors are credited).

-Edit! Misquote :)
29 Sep, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Bobo the bee said:
Tyche said:
The specific problem is that all the open source projects on Google Code can be used commercially.


I'm not sure that this is quite the case, as my quick looking over of Google Code's ToS's speaks of differentiating between an open-source project and a commerical project, but I do get the feel that Google Code is wanting to promote licenses that allow people to take a code, modify it to some limited extent, and be able to sell it. I did find this quote from them:
Google Code said:
In addition, we think that license proliferation is bad for the open source community, so we only allow a subset of licenses to be used on Google Code as a way of discouraging license proliferation. License proliferation means the creation and use of new OSS licenses that have no reason for existing. There are over 200 open source approved licenses, most of which are variants of existing licenses that do not add much value. This state of affairs makes compliance with open source licenses a nightmare because you can no longer simply rely on having a small number of licenses if you use open source libraries (in either an open source or a commercial product), but instead have to deal with mixing code from as many licenses as you use libraries. This is not just bad from a legal perspective, but it is a huge turnoff for people wanting to use and create open source. The licenses we have chosen cover the needs of 99% of our users, and our stand on license proliferation has actually helped to create a dialog about what licenses people should be using, and given us a chance to educate people about good license choice.


So, yeah, it doesn't sound like Google will want to host the DIKU or ROM licenses.


They're not making distinction betwwn OSS and commercial, just listing options that happen to overlap

Google Code uses the OSI definition for acceptable licenses. They even link to it in the FAQ. See: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
Quote
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.


All OSS can be used commercially under the OSI definition.
29 Sep, 2010, Tyche wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Mudder said:
I can't find any olc license in the documentation at all. If there should be, let me know where I can get it and I'll quickly add it to mudbytes repository.


A public notice was posted here:
http://www.mudconnect.com/discuss/discus...
and here:
http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/mud-ad...
29 Sep, 2010, quixadhal wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Yay, another license interpretation war!

DikuMUD != Open Source. Google requires Open Source. RaM derives from ROM derives from Merc derives from DikuMUD. No RaM for Google.

If you have a linux/unix shell, setting up Subversion or git isn't hard. If you use subversion, you should be able to directly import the old repository. If you use git, there's a filter somewhere to do it. Both have their quirks. I use git these days, just because the repository lives right with your data, so it's easier to back up and manage (IMO).
20.0/26