From 0ea5fc66924303d1bf73ba283a383e2aadee02f2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: neodarz Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2018 20:21:34 +0200 Subject: Initial commit --- pipermail/nel/2001-June/000446.html | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+) create mode 100644 pipermail/nel/2001-June/000446.html (limited to 'pipermail/nel/2001-June/000446.html') diff --git a/pipermail/nel/2001-June/000446.html b/pipermail/nel/2001-June/000446.html new file mode 100644 index 00000000..39beb40a --- /dev/null +++ b/pipermail/nel/2001-June/000446.html @@ -0,0 +1,73 @@ + + + + [Nel] Game Rules + + + + + + +

[Nel] Game Rules

+ John Cosby + jcosby@gscyclone.com
+ Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:31:17 -0400 +

+
+ +
I've been observing for a bit, and feel a need to jump in here.
+
+In many jurisdictions (America and England that I know of), the rules of a
+game cannot be copyrighted.  Specific presentation, game boards, pieces,
+etc. may by trademarked and copyrighted, but the rules that define gameplay
+cannot.
+
+This leads to an interesting notion when looking at making a game's source
+code public.  There is no legal protection for the rules themselves - the
+graphics, user interface, etc. may be protected, though.
+
+In this fashion, Nel seems to have a business model that will work, in that
+they will be charging to play on their servers using their bandwidth.  If
+the rules of the game are defined and implemented in source code, then those
+rules may be taken and adapted or reused.  If the rules of the game are
+implemented in libraries using a public API, then those may be "protected"
+in so far as the original source and documentation is not available,
+although anyone who wants to reverse-engineer (on the basis of behavior,
+given the licenses attached to EQ and UO) can come up with their own
+implementation of what they believe the game rules to be.
+
+All because I wanted to reimplement a game Prodigy let die, years and years
+ago....
+
+
+
+
+
+ + + + + +
+

+ -- cgit v1.2.1