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

Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:45:30 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Leighton Haynes wrote:
+> 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). 
+
+That's true; I meant only the IP additions to the NEL sourcecode, which
+appeared to be what the original poster was interested in.  As Sal said,
+the game content would be handled differently.
+
+I'm less sure of the rules regarding dynamic linking and scripting.  I
+think "linking is linking", so the former would fall under GPL rules,
+whereas the latter I would hazard to guess falls more into the "content"
+category and thus can be arbitrarily licensed.  But this seems like a
+very grey area, and seeking out ways to get around the author's intents
+and use their work on terms of dubious legality doesn't seem like a
+kosher thing to do.  
+
+In any case, you can always try negotiating with Nevrax for special
+licensing terms; I'm sure they're open to making more money.  ;-)
+ 
+Bryce
+
+
+