26 May, 2008, exeter wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I'm considering licensing my MUD codebase under this licence. (See this link for details if you are unfamiliar with it.) My questions are two:

1. Has anyone used this license?
2. What do you think of it?

Thanks!
26 May, 2008, Asylumius wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I've never heard of it before.

I didn't read the entire thing, but from what I understand, this means that under the Affero GPL, anyone running a MUD under this license would be required to make the source code available if they wish to run the MUD on a publicly available server.

If I'm correct in that assessment, I think it's neat. I like that if we did see a couple of codebases become popular under this license, it would really enliven the community. That said, it also seems hard to enforce. Even if an individual did have the legal right to request the source code for a program like a MUD under the terms of this license, it's still a very small group or people (or one individual) who is trying to see that the license be honored. I could still see many people taking code under this license, using it, and refusing to release their modifications because they simply won't get in trouble. We've seen this before.

Again, I'm posting with a pretty limited understanding of it all, but it seems like something looks more appealing in theory than in practice, with regards to MUDs. The website talks about network servers and whatnot, which makes sense. If we're talking about something that a lot of people would want the code to (because it's very useful), I can see it working.

I like it though..
26 May, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
I think that if you need to force people to release their work, then you have in a sense already lost the battle when it comes to fostering a healthy and vibrant community. In the end of the day, people will either respect the license and release code, or keep it to themselves until somebody comes around and enforces the license.
26 May, 2008, Guest wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Lovely. So now there are licenses which seek to force the copyright holders to publish their work so others can benefit from it. Code Communism. I doubt it would hold up in court if it were to be challenged. And I agree with David too. If you have to resort to this kind of licensing the community you're in is already lost.
26 May, 2008, Asylumius wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
I'll agree that in a community the size of ours, it's too little too late. Even so, in say, the Linux community, it makes sense. Forcing people who want to improve on your software to release their changes instead of simply making it better for their own gain seems fine to me. In the end, if you don't like the terms of the license, don't use it.
26 May, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
But that's the thing: unless you have the guns to enforce it, it's more or less an empty threat and the only sanction will be being frowned upon by people who want to uphold the license. You can still be on your merry way doing whatever it was you were doing. I don't think this license would have made any difference in the MUD community. If people aren't doing it on their own, trying to force them to won't be effective.
26 May, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
It'd be like Vryce and Medievia all over the place.
26 May, 2008, Asylumius wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Do people other than the copyright holder have the legal right to take action against somebody using code under the license and not releasing their changes? If the original copyright holder is still the only person who can enforce compliance, then it really is no better than the plain old GPL. But, if I could go to court and say, "Hey look, this guy isn't following the rules this other guy laid down, lemme see his code!" then maybe it would be alright.

I agree though, like I said, it's pretty much useless (in theory and practice) to a community the size of ours.
26 May, 2008, exeter wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Asylumius said:
Do people other than the copyright holder have the legal right to take action against somebody using code under the license and not releasing their changes? If the original copyright holder is still the only person who can enforce compliance, then it really is no better than the plain old GPL. But, if I could go to court and say, "Hey look, this guy isn't following the rules this other guy laid down, lemme see his code!" then maybe it would be alright.


The license explicitly grants the power to say "Hey, this guy is running FooMUD – lemme see your code!" Unfortunately, according to copyright law, I believe the copyright holder is the only one empowered to sue in court to compel someone to release their code in court.

I came across this license a while back and it sort of struck a chord with me. I want my base server code to be shared throughout the community. Call it "code communism" if you like. In fact, I think that's not a bad name for the concept.

My idea was to release the server under the AGPL and keep my world content proprietary. In theory, assuming the source code transmission provision could hold up in court if challenged, this would guarantee what I'd see as a "best of both worlds" situation: the server would be free for people to improve, inspect, etc, while the content would be what draws people to any one specific game.

In practice, I sort of wonder if a permissive MIT or new-style BSD (i.e. sans advertising clause) license wouldn't be best. (Although, actually, of all the permissive licenses, I like the WTFPL best: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ , but I'd probably add a "no-warranty" clause.)

Thanks all for your interesting replies.

Edit: Although (I think) it is still true that only the copyright holder can sue in court to enforce the terms of the license, when licensing code under a GPL-type license, the recommended strategy (by the FSF) is to assign copyright to an entity which has the resources to enforce the license.
26 May, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
I think a permissive license is better. It establishes a different rapport; the AGPL is operating under the assumption that people want do not want to share their code and must be forced to do so. The permissive licenses operate under the assumption that people will do the right thing. In the latter case, whatever happens will happen; in the former case, somebody would have to spend resources to make it happen (unlikely) and it would make things go sour.
25 Jun, 2008, darkraider wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Honestly before I have never heard of this licence before. but I live the idea of a permissive license better.
05 Feb, 2010, Parhelion wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
NECROPOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, to the serious point –

I have been considering using a mudlib with this sort of license, but I can see where being forced to release my improvements, and what I build on top of the mudlib, as overall being detrimental to my game and NOT helpful to the community.

The type of game that I plan to build is one where it would not be a very good thing for players to be able to just ask for the source code so that they can crack it open to "find the answers." I currently work on a MUD where there are enormous issues with players simply memorizing the game's gameplay mechanics (like how combat specifically works, puzzle solutions, and how to ultimately maximize your efficiency in skills) to the point where it overwhelms the actual point of the game and makes it no longer fun for those who want to roleplay (and the game is primarily a roleplaying game).

What becomes an "improvement" to the mudlib, and how does it differ from an exclusive feature of the game – or is not possible to differentiate between these two things at all? Do my areas (which often contain uniquely written code, and are not generated through an OLC-type setup) become a part of that mudlib, or are they my IP? What if I add in a unique magic system? Is this under the domain of the mudlib's license, or is it still -my- property, especially given that the code may be inseparably tied together with thematic design?
05 Feb, 2010, Cratylus wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
You're using the term "mudlib" which is typically associated with LP muds.

This makes me think the answer is "no, you don't need to release your whole dang mud"
(assuming it's the driver, not the lib, which is AGPL).

If you're using the term "mudlib" to refer to a non-LP mud, then maybe you should
explain the specific relationship between the world data and the executable.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
06 Feb, 2010, Parhelion wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
I was talking about LPmuds, but I am using the term "mudlib" to associate with mudlib, not the driver. I recognize these as separate issues.

The mudlib I was referring to was Phantasmal, which stated it was available under the AGPL through its Sourceforge portal. HOWEVER, after digging through the downloaded files itself, I see that this is not the case and so I was mistaken. I don't know if there are other mudlibs out there that are available like this, however, so I suppose the question could be answered on the basis of theory. :)
0.0/14