Re: [Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.

[Leighton Haynes]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 05:12:38PM -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> If it is important to you to keep your IP closed, then you should use a
> closed library rather than an open one.  There are many other libraries
> out there that allow for keeping stuff proprietary, and some of them are
> quite good.  Some require fees or other charges in return for use of
> their license.
This is a bit misleading. The game world is also your IP. This bit of IP
would most definitely stay closed, in any commercial concern. And in general
even most free (the beer sense, not the speech) games worlds. Having your
game world ripped off does happen (it happened to DiscWorld mud, not that
it's exactly 'killed' them,  but they did from memory end up making
the sourcecode harder to get hold of). 

> NEL, like other open source things, operates on a share-and-share-alike
> principle.  Nevrax is being very generous in providing their code
> openly, so you can see it and use it without having to pay any fees.
> The one condition that they have asked in return is that you do
> likewise.  You have to decide for yourself if their price is acceptable,
> and if so, you're bound to abide by it.  If it isn't, then you should
> use a different piece of code more to your liking (or write your own).  
In return for giving a good base set of libraries, Nevrax hope to get 
lots of free contributions to their project. This isn't as evil as it sounds
since everyone is still free to work on whatever parts they like, and
hopefully they will remain fairly lenient on what features make it in to the
repository. (Ie, don't just include what _they_ want. I don't imply
they should be lenient on content. Be code nazis, keep ugly code out :P)
Of course, if they behave in a manner you feel is not conducive to
the spirit of open-source development, you're free to split off your own 
version of the tree.

> NEL keeps their game _content_ (e.g., artwork) proprietary while
> releasing their source code; perhaps you could follow that approach as
> well.  Or else you could strive to compete with other users of your
> modified code on the basis of name recognition, performance,
> reliability, and customer service.

This should be stressed a bit more. It's basically impossible for them to
'duplicate' your mud/whatever without the content. Content is not just artwork,
but all the sounds, probably most of the look of the interface, the scripts 
which control the AI behaviour. Basically, if they can take your sourcecode, 
and duplicate your mud, you haven't doine very much :)

What they do get of course, is that little mod you did to the game engine
for pretty-as-hell lens effects. Or your modified particle engine
to accurately model a fireball. Anyone who looks at the current crop of games
will tell you that it's not this sort of thing that makes or breaks a game.

> (This is community service - I'm not associated with NEL in any way, but
> admire that they are actually making their source code Free.)
Yeah, ditto the not associated with Nevrax thing... 
unless they feel like hiring of course ;)

Leighton...

--

Part-time student. Full-time Programmer. 
Seeking the 36 hour day and the 10 hour working week.
(08) 9272 9058 (Home - like I'm ever there)
0401 335 136 (Mobile - like it's ever on)