Subject: TeensyMud hacking
Author: Ernstl
Posted: 03/01/2012 08:25AM
Greetings, I have noticed your Ruby-based MUD software and I would like to
hack on it :-)
One thing though, I ask you to re-license it under a well-known license.
Using a common, proven, compatible license drives attracts volunteers to a
codebase to contribute. So far, you are the primary contributor, so I ask
you to consider my request.
I have noticed that you selected a BSD-like license and added a custom
patent protection license. Correct me if I am wrong; I assume that this
patent protection property of a license is important to you, so I have
selected a few licenses, which would be suitable as a future license.
* A stock alternative to the current license is the Apache 2.0 license.
The text is longer, but it otherwise has the same properties as the
license you chose. It would also be automatically GPL-compatible, is a
respected FOSS license and also contains a protection from patent claims.
The downside to this license (like the MIT and BSD licenses) is that it
can legally be taken and used for commercial purposed without the
developers getting paid. The following licenses would counter-act this.
* If you are fine with a weak share-alike / copyleft property, I can
recomment the Lesser GPL v3. It is like the license you chose, but also
copyleft while allowing linking with propiertary extenstions with a
different license. The Lesser GPLv3 also contains protection from patent
claims.
* If you are fine with a strong share-alike / copyleft property, I can
recommend the Affero GPL, which is the GPL v3 tailored for software
running on servers. This would be a perfect match for a MUD server
software. It allows linking exclusively with GPL-compatible software - of
which there is plenty. It also contains protection from patent abuse.
Let me know what you think and I hope to hear from you soon about this
matter.
For your reference:
Apache license:
no share-alike, link with differently-licensed code, patent license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License
LGPLv3 license:
share-alike, link with differently-licensed code, patent license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License
Affero GPLv3 license:
share-alike, patent license, for server-based software
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License
If you do not mind the clause 3 in the current
TeensyMud license any more,
then these would be the recommended alternatives:
BSD license (3-clause or 2-clause):
No share-alike, no patent license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#3-clause_license_.28.22New_BSD_License.22_or_.22Modified_BSD_License.22.29
MIT license:
no share-alike, no patent license
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_license
Sincerely,
Ernst
reply
Subject: TeensyMud hacking
Author: Tyche
Posted: 03/04/2012 09:32PM
Hello,
Sorry for the delay. I don't check the forums very often.
The code is currently being used in at least four other projects that I know of.
I don't believe in changing licenses unless there is a serious problem with it.
I certainly do not want to add restrictions like many of the licenses you referred
to do.
Yes, it is a simple BSD-like license.
It is certainly OSI compliant.
And, as far as I know, GPL compatible as other BSD-like licenses.
I believe some of the others are using GPLed code with it.
> The downside to this license (like the MIT and BSD licenses) is that it
> can legally be taken and used for commercial purposed without the
> developers getting paid. The following licenses would counter-act this.
Well this is also true of all the GPL licenses you listed.
I only accept patches or code on this license.
However there is nothing stopping you or anyone from forking the code, hacking
on it, and adding additional restrictions on their version like non-commercial
use or forced release of source with binary, or whatever you want.
reply
Subject: TeensyMud hacking
Author: Ernstl
Posted: 03/07/2012 12:46PM
> Sorry for the delay. I don't check the forums very often.
No problem :-)
> The code is currently being used in at least four other projects that I know of.
> I don't believe in changing licenses unless there is a serious problem with it.
> I certainly do not want to add restrictions like many of the licenses you referred
> to do.
Well, using a common, well-known license is always a great plus.
Would the Apache 2.0 be an option for you?
It does not add any restrictions compared to your current license, see here under "Apache License":
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2010/03/24/a-short-guide-to-open-source-and-similar-licenses/
> However there is nothing stopping you or anyone from forking the code, hacking
> on it, and adding additional restrictions on their version like non-commercial
> use or forced release of source with binary, or whatever you want.
I would opt for a fork if you insist on the current license.
Thank you for your other clarifications.
Different question: Where can I find a ZMP specification? I wuold like to understand it and I tried hard searching, but came up empty-handed.
Greetings, Ernst
reply
TeensyMud - 'A ruby mud server.'