Author Topic: Current Fluffos licence  (Read 2644 times)

Offline silenus

  • BFF
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Current Fluffos licence
« on: January 20, 2014, 11:10:02 AM »
Hi I am curious about the current state of fluffos and which files are licensed under what kind of restrictions etc. I am thinking of rewriting portions with some new code (wondering how best to licence the new code).

Offline FallenTree

  • BFF
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: Current Fluffos licence
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2014, 11:21:35 AM »
http://fluffos.github.io/ has the original license disclaimer distributed with the source.

I think the best approach to license new code is to fully comply with the existing license , "Permission is granted to extend and modify the source code provided subject to the restriction that the source code may not be used in any way whatsoever for monetary gain."

Offline silenus

  • BFF
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Current Fluffos licence
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2014, 12:24:37 PM »
I am thinking of using a different open source license- hence the question. i.e. bsd style or something of that nature. It shouldnt conflict with the existing license however it does provide a bit more latitude. It's easier to work without worrying about the licensing issues and use the existing license but I think then it gives more incentives to work with dgd since the license is more permissive.

Offline FallenTree

  • BFF
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: Current Fluffos licence
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2014, 12:59:06 PM »
I'm been thinking about this for a bit since I restarted the work on the driver. My current conclusion is that it doesn't matter that much.  Even if we start today, making all new patches GPL,  it wouldn't help anybody since probably no one can use those GPL patches standalone.  And it's very unlikely we can rewrite *all* old code. It simply doesn't make sense, economically and logically. There is very little benefit for doing that. 

You could say because we are not BSD licensed there will be no capitalism power workhorse donating patches. Some could also say since no one can make money with the code it has no practical use in real world and is doomed to dead in the future,  but so does many other more liberally licensed projects. Most software project dies. GPL or BSD or whatever, i think it matters very less in this case.

Offline quixadhal

  • BFF
  • ***
  • Posts: 631
    • View Profile
    • WileyMUD
Re: Current Fluffos licence
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2014, 05:23:02 PM »
Just to clarify something.  You can't change the license unless you can get ALL prior contributers to sign off on the change.  FluffOS is not an original work.  No matter how much you do to it, it's still dervied from FluffOS, which was derived from MudOS, which was derived from LPMUD.

There was an attempt to try and free it to the GPL some years ago, but it failed because not everyone could be contacted.

Personally, I would adopt a BSD license, given the choice.  GPL makes things incompatible with DikuMUD, and while LPMUD people like to sneer at that side of the universe, the fact is... we'd really benefit from converting some of those people.  Telling them they can't bring any of their code with them, and would need to rewrite all their combat systems they've tweaked for years isn't a popular idea.

To put it simply, if you want a GPL driver, take DGD and make it FluffOS compatible.  You're going to have a much easier time implementing closures and "happy code" in DGD, than trying to contact a few dozen people who have left the mudding community decades ago, and convince them all to allow you to relicense the driver. :)

Offline silenus

  • BFF
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
    • View Profile
Re: Current Fluffos licence
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2014, 03:28:58 AM »
I actually considered doing a ground up driver project but I suspect that it will take quite a while to achieve that goal and probably is no longer worth it. Dgd i think probably took two years to finish and the interest in muds is no longer what it use to be. Even though I feel that they are quite entertaining compared to modern gfx heavy gaming titles, I am not sure how much that opinion is shared in general.

I may just contribute some patches to fluffos then if I can figure out some remaining details of how the compiler <-> vm byte code system functions.

Offline cratylus

  • Your favorite and best
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1020
  • Cratylus@Dead Souls <ds> np
    • View Profile
    • About Cratylus
Re: Current Fluffos licence
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2014, 02:25:49 AM »
I can't tell whether the original poster is interested in licensing or messing around with code regardless of licensing.

Fluff is obviously very well suited for tinkering with and I recommend doing so if you don't care about contributing to a project with licensing so messy that it may be *technically* unusable in a legal way at this point.

If you're serious about contributing to a driver project in a legit way you can put in a resume and license rationally, DGD is the Right Answer, and moreover you're liable to contribute in a meaningful way that gets you monuments and statues if you get DGD to work in a way that lets you conveniently port Fluff LPC onto it.

Granted, the monuments and statues will be text-only, but the gratitude will be real.

-Crat

Offline FallenTree

  • BFF
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
    • View Profile
Re: Current Fluffos licence
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2014, 03:38:42 PM »
Maybe: DGD does look that it had done a lot of things right internally. I might poke around and see if I can get something to run.

The reason LPC language forked to multiple variant is not clear to me (How not like C can a C fork get?)

Offline quixadhal

  • BFF
  • ***
  • Posts: 631
    • View Profile
    • WileyMUD
Re: Current Fluffos licence
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2014, 09:45:36 PM »
Same reason anything open source forks... somebody had ideas they wanted to implement that the maintainers had no interest in, or the maintainers disappeared and people got sick of the lack of bugfixes.

LPMUD 2.4.5 was Lars' LPC.  LPMUD 3.1.2 had started to evolve, and then Amylaar took it and tweaked it.  At some point, that turned into LDMUD.  MudOS also forked from Amylaar's version of 3.1.2 (I think), because they had different ideas of where it should go.  FluffOS forked from MudOS because the Discworld people had many bugfixes, and the MudOS people were unresponsive.

DGD came about because Dworkin wanted to make money with a commercial project using LPC, and couldn't with the existing license... so He wrote his own LPC driver.  It was commercial until he got his multi-threading LPC driver stable (Hydra), at which point he made DGD GPL.