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

Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:35:48 +0800

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)
+
+