Vanilla Netrek Server Development Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[VANILLA-L:1473] Re: [VANILLA-L:1470] RE: [VANILLA-L:1466] Re: [VANILLA-L:1457] Re: Discussion
- To: vanilla-l@us.netrek.org
- Subject: [VANILLA-L:1473] Re: [VANILLA-L:1470] RE: [VANILLA-L:1466] Re: [VANILLA-L:1457] Re: Discussion
- From: Dave Ahn <ahn@vec.wfubmc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:46:57 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <000201be59f4$843f5d30$0d00000a@aesthetic>; from Steve Sheldon on Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 03:28:04PM -0600
- Mail-Followup-To: vanilla-l@us.netrek.org
- Organization: Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center
- References: <19990216135746.A5873@vec.wfubmc.edu> <000201be59f4$843f5d30$0d00000a@aesthetic>
- Reply-To: vanilla-l@us.netrek.org
- Sender: owner-vanilla-l
On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 03:28:04PM -0600, Steve Sheldon wrote:
[Microsoft example deleted]
> No, the current Netrek license does not allow this, it specifically states
> that you cannot use, modify, distribute, whatever the software for a fee.
You misread. Or at least misunderstood. From the copyright notices in the
Vanilla server:
|Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
|software and its documentation for any purpose and without
|fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright
|notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright
|notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
|documentation. No representations are made about the
|suitability of this software for any purpose. It is
|provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.
The phrase "any purpose" includes for-profit use. There is no provision for
derived works being also free; only that they must contain the copyright and
permission notice (that would not affect new modifications). This means that
Microsoft can use, customize and sell this software without paying a fee
to the authors. One would be a fool to buy the software, because it is
freely available anyway, but there is nothing that prevents "for-profit"
use or modification to the software.
> The GPL on the other hand does allow someone to take the software and sell
> it for a fee as long as they give away the source. A much more real concern
> is not Microsoft but an entity like RedHat.
Microsoft was just a farfetched example. I probably wouldn't want for-profit
use of any code I contribute. But this is something I'd yield if we decide
GPL is for us. Maybe it isn't. But, if we're going to allow for-profit use
(as the curernt license does), we might as well require that the changes be
also made public.
> As far as the source code control. The current license allows people like
> Tedd Hadley to write a number of interesting robots that simulate
> dogfighters and oggers and not release the source code.
This is true and is one good argument against GPL and for some other license.
> On the one hand that's bad because I'd like to see the source, and I think
> the robots are a cool thing and it'd be ashame if they were lost because the
> compiled binary won't run on the latest OS level.
Exactly my point two paragraphs ago. :)
> On the other hand, this allowed Tedd to experiment with AI in his
> Autonomous Netrek Agents, write a paper on it and gain fame and glory. And
> while at the same time he gave to Netrek something really interesting to
> play with.
The GLGPL could be an alternative. If libnetrek.a is covered under GLGPL and
daemonII/ntserv/robots are covered under GPL or NSL, it would still allow
situations like Tedd's but still require fundamental changes to stay public.
Just an idea.
> A lot of the really popular stuff uses a Berkeley style license, such as
> Apache. Some other popular stuff uses GPL, and then there are other
> licenses.
Yeah. Or maybe this is all moot and nobody cares. :P
> Actually I would be curious what options are available to not use RSA.
We could use the new SSH2 libraries that provide a couple of royalty free
algorithms available both outside and inside the US. There are others,
but I think SSH2 is one of the most widely used versions that is actually
legal. (For example, PGPI 5.x libs are/may not be legal inside the US).
> > But the majority of
> > Netrek code does not have a "non-commercial" clause anyway.
>
> Both the client and server does.
Not sure about all the clients. I was looking at the Vanilla server;
presumably the COW client contains the same notices.
> I don't think it would garner any new interest, and I don't think the
> tradeoff is worth it...
Maybe not.
--
Dave Ahn <ahn@vec.wfubmc.edu> | "When you were born, you cried and the
| world rejoiced. Try to live your life
Virtual Endoscopy Center | so that when you die, you will rejoice
Wake Forest Univ. School of Medicine | and the world will cry." -1/2 jj^2
+
++ Vanilla-l Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe vanilla-l" to majordomo@real-time.com
For more information: http://archives.real-time.com