licensing

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

licensing

Ted Roby
Hi list.
I've spent some time porting one of my favorite dungeon
games (a Rom 2.6 derivative). I've only begun this project,
but have already converted 1700+ lines as such:
strcat -> strlcat
strcpy -> strlcpy
sprintf -> snprintf

Much to my disappointment, I may have to rewrite large portions
before I am "allowed" to share this with the OpenBSD community.

Here's why:
/* Written by Virigoth sometime circa april 2000 for FORSAKEN LANDS mud.*/
/* This is the implementation of the selectable skills code             */
/* NOT TO BE USED OR REPLICATED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION OF AUTHOR   */
/* [hidden email]                                             */


The above email address is invalid. The mud "Forsaken Lands" is active,
and maintained by different developers who do not own this code, either.

Time for me to write OpenMUD?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

bofh-6
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Time for me to write OpenMUD?

I've had fond memories of CircleMud, and I believe the maintainer is
still around.


--
http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
"Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or
internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks
factory where smoking on the job is permitted."  -- Gene Spafford
learn french:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Christopher Dukes
In reply to this post by Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote:
> /* [hidden email]                                             */

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba

I think you'll find a good idea of who to write care of which company.
--
Chris Dukes

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote:
> > /* [hidden email]
> */
>
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba
>
> I think you'll find a good idea of who to write care of which company.
> --
> Chris Dukes
>

Are you serious?

Nice usage of the previously mentioned lmgtfy.

You think it's valid information to supply a link that requires
I join their database before I have access to the information
I am looking for?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Sean Kamath
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote:
>>> /* [hidden email]
>> */
>>
>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba
>>
>> I think you'll find a good idea of who to write care of which
>> company.
>> --
>> Chris Dukes
>>
>
> Are you serious?
>
> Nice usage of the previously mentioned lmgtfy.
>
> You think it's valid information to supply a link that requires
> I join their database before I have access to the information
> I am looking for?
>

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voytek+plawny

Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit b can't help you thereb&

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Sean Kamath <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote:
>>>
>>>> /* [hidden email]
>>>>
>>> */
>>>
>>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba
>>>
>>>
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voytek+plawny
>
> Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit  can't help you there


You're going to propagate the absurdity with your own google search?
You assume Voytek Plawny is/was umplawny of cc.umanitoba.ca.

Go entertain yourself with google searches of "Theo" and "Software",
or other commonalities on the 'net.

My posting had nothing to do with locating the person(s) mentioned above.
That's the greatest absurdity of all shared by you and Orchid man, Chris
Dukes.
He has a cat to get rid of, if you need one....

The original issue remains that putting such license wording in your
work means that it can never evolve into public domain.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Sean Kamath
On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Sean Kamath <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> /* [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voytek+plawny
>>
>> Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit  can't help you there
>
>
> You're going to propagate the absurdity with your own google search?
> You assume Voytek Plawny is/was umplawny of cc.umanitoba.ca.

Which is it: you're ticked off the original lmgtfy reply pointed to a
pay site, or that we tried to point out if you cared *that* much about
finding the original auther, it shouldn't be that hard?

Sean

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Sean Kamath <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Which is it: you're ticked off the original lmgtfy reply pointed to a pay
> site, or that we tried to point out if you cared *that* much about finding
> the original auther, it shouldn't be that hard?
>
> Sean



I reluctantly reply to the entire list, even though you copied me
personally...

I don't care about finding the original <sic>"auther"</sic>.

He left behind licensing which forbids its application in Open Source.

Please tell me what I should do with his permission?

At best, he can let me host my own mud with his code.
At worst, he must rewrite his entire license in all the associated files.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Sean Kamath
On Apr 14, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Please tell me what I should do with his permission?
>
> At best, he can let me host my own mud with his code.
> At worst, he must rewrite his entire license in all the associated
> files.

Now *that* is an interesting question. As the original author, they
should be able to rerelease the original code with a different license
or with none at all. And they don't even need to do the work!  They
could provide someone, perhaps yourself, with a release to make the
code free. Otherwise, how would companies that once licensed their
code release it under a BSD License (which has happened).

Hunting down authors of abandonware can and has been done before. And
has also resulted in permission to release the code as open source. So
it can very much be a worthwhile endeavor.

And sorry for the mispellings before. This time I'm not walking up the
stairs to lunchb&. And fixing the to/cc line still sucks on mobile
devices.

Sean

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Sean Kamath <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Apr 14, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Please tell me what I should do with his permission?
>>
>> At best, he can let me host my own mud with his code.
>> At worst, he must rewrite his entire license in all the associated
>> files.
>>
>
> Now *that* is an interesting question. As the original author, they
> should be able to rerelease the original code with a different license
> or with none at all. And they don't even need to do the work!  They
> could provide someone, perhaps yourself, with a release to make the
> code free. Otherwise, how would companies that once licensed their
> code release it under a BSD License (which has happened).
>
>
The "original" author is actually:
Diku Mud copyright (C) 1990, 1991 by Sebastian Hammer, Michael Seifert,
Hans Henrik Sterfeldt, Tom Madsen, and Katja Nyboe.  Their license agreement
is in the file 'license.doc'.

And their license requirements would still fit in the Ports tree:

#begin quote
In order to use Merc you must follow the Diku license and our license.  The
exact terms of the Diku license are in the file 'license.doc'.  A summary of
these terms is:

        -- No resale or operation for profit.
        -- Original author's names must appear in login sequence.
        -- The 'credits' command must report original authors.
        -- You must notify the Diku creators that you are operating a Diku
mud.

Our license terms are:

        -- Copyrights must remain in original source.
        -- 'Help merc' must report our help text, as shipped.

#end quote

However, the author who wrote "snippets" for new features
decided to expressly limit his license even further as such:

/* NOT TO BE USED OR REPLICATED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION OF AUTHOR   */
/* [hidden email]  */

Sure... maybe he's had a change of heart in 10 years...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Chris Lawson-3
In reply to this post by Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Sean Kamath <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>  On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> /* [hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voytek+plawny
>>
>> Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit   can't help you there
>
>
> You're going to propagate the absurdity with your own google search?
> You assume Voytek Plawny is/was umplawny of cc.umanitoba.ca.
>
> Go entertain yourself with google searches of "Theo" and "Software",
> or other commonalities on the 'net.
>
> My posting had nothing to do with locating the person(s) mentioned above.
> That's the greatest absurdity of all shared by you and Orchid man, Chris
> Dukes.
> He has a cat to get rid of, if you need one....
>
> The original issue remains that putting such license wording in your
> work means that it can never evolve into public domain.

You're kidding us, right?  You can't bother to google something so
basic, you complain when someone points you in the right direction,
make a quick detour for a spelling flame, then act like it'd be way
more work to email a couple of guys randomly (especially for such an
uncommon name from Manitoba) than it would be to re-write something
from scratch...

And I bet no one has *ever* re-licensed their hobby project so it can
breath new life.  No need to ask when you can peer into the future.

Sean is much more patient than I; after the second round of bullshit
you dumped here, I'd have told you to eat a dick.

Chris

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Chris <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> You're kidding us, right?  You can't bother to google something so
> basic, you complain when someone points you in the right direction,
> make a quick detour for a spelling flame, then act like it'd be way
> more work to email a couple of guys randomly (especially for such an
> uncommon name from Manitoba) than it would be to re-write something
> from scratch...
>
> And I bet no one has *ever* re-licensed their hobby project so it can
> breath new life.  No need to ask when you can peer into the future.
>
> Sean is much more patient than I; after the second round of bullshit
> you dumped here, I'd have told you to eat a dick.
>
> Chris
>
>
This is your second round of bullshit.

I had googled all of this before my first post.
In fact, I have been in contact with the current
maintainers of the project. They have explicit
permission, but that doesn't give me explicit
permission.

You blew off on this message board assuming I hadn't even
googled, or found our friend Voytek Plawny.

Why? I guess it made you feel like you were contributing something.

Find yourself another target for self-aggrandization.
You're still just another monkey on a mailing list.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Sean Kamath
On Apr 14, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You blew off on this message board assuming I hadn't even
> googled, or found our friend Voytek Plawny.

So?  Inquiring minds want to know!  *Is* he the guy at EA?  And more  
importantly, is he still a dick?

Sean

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Sean Kamath <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Apr 14, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Ted Roby <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> You blew off on this message board assuming I hadn't even
>> googled, or found our friend Voytek Plawny.
>>
>
> So?  Inquiring minds want to know!  *Is* he the guy at EA?  And more
> importantly, is he still a dick?
>
> Sean
>
>
He may be the Plawny of the New York State Senate.

Google results are inconclusive.

Personal communique has been ignored.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Paul M-7
In reply to this post by Ted Roby
On 15/04/2010, at 8:16 AM, Ted Roby wrote:

> I had googled all of this before my first post.
> In fact, I have been in contact with the current
> maintainers of the project. They have explicit
> permission, but that doesn't give me explicit
> permission.

Ok, now I'm confused.

You've been ranting for a while now, but what exactly is your
question???

As I read it, you have updates to some code which has an unfriendly
license, and you cant contact the licensor to get permission.
Is this a fair summary? If so, what does this have to do with us?

Further more - if you've been in contact with the current maintainers,
who have been in contact with the licensor, cannot they put you in
contact? (please don't answer this question - I really dont care what
you or they have to say on this. It's rhetorical).

Please clarify what you want from this list.

paulm

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Paul M <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Please clarify what you want from this list.
>
>
Peace, Love and Understanding.

Yeah right..

I got more help from the first poster who suggested using
Circle Mud instead. The problem is, I was quite attached to
to this modified Rom code, and perhaps committed the
error of getting my hopes up.

I didn't post here looking for the author, or asinine tips
on how to google him. Duh...

The rest of the bitching you heard was in reply to
the two NULLs who couldn't properly read my first message.

Are you a third?

NULL + NULL + NULL still equals nothing.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Bryan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I thought "nothing" was "zero", and NUL was the absence of nothing...
>


Wouldn't NULL be the absence of everything, including numerical 0?

Dropping the semantics I'd have to say this thread is NULL, and yet
it is full of...  well, whatever that smell is...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Sean Kamath
In reply to this post by Ted Roby
On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:57 PM, Ted Roby wrote:
> I got more help from the first poster who suggested using
> Circle Mud instead. The problem is, I was quite attached to
> to this modified Rom code, and perhaps committed the
> error of getting my hopes up.

You just weren't <sic>to to</sic> clear in your first post.  /dev/null here
couldn't figure out if you were just bitching about the idiocy of people's
random licenses (and believe me, I've been seeing stupid licenses on code
since 1984 on my school's Vax 785 run BSD4.1 -- it's gotten only marginally
better), or whining that you couldn't use this super-cool pile of code because
you couldn't contact the author.  You did not hint that you even *tried* to
contact him, them or whatever.  And then you reply to the first response,
bitching about what someone helpfully tries to suggest might aid you in
finding the author.  OK, I'm a shit for poking the bear.  But still, you could
have just said "yeah, I tried that, and haven't heard back", but no, you gotta
put him in his place. . . Sheesh.

> NULL + NULL + NULL still equals nothing.

Properly chastised, I'm going back to lurking.

Sean

PS Theo does a *WAY* better job of bitch-slapping me, by the way.  But keep
trying!

PPS Normally I avoid poking fun at people's typos and misspellings.  But since
turnabout is fair play. . .

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Ted Roby
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Sean Kamath <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:57 PM, Ted Roby wrote:
> > I got more help from the first poster who suggested using
> > Circle Mud instead. The problem is, I was quite attached to
> > to this modified Rom code, and perhaps committed the
> > error of getting my hopes up.
>
> You just weren't <sic>to to</sic> clear in your first post.


I guess not. Further posting of Diku code brought out Lars' useful reply.


>  /dev/null here
> couldn't figure out if you were just bitching about the idiocy of people's
> random licenses (and believe me, I've been seeing stupid licenses on code
> since 1984 on my school's Vax 785 run BSD4.1 -- it's gotten only marginally
> better), or whining that you couldn't use this super-cool pile of code
> because
> you couldn't contact the author.


You weren't actually a "NULL" by the time I wrote that. I was speaking of
the "Chris Dukes" and "Chris" addresses, whether they be the same man
cow or not. Sure, you threw up that annoying lmgtfy reference after he
did, but we actually had a conversation.

Mr. Dukes made two postings back on the 25th of March, and then he suddenly
resurfaces to throw an lmgtfy in my face. (A link I suspect he just learned
of from
another post.) After my bit of defensive posture he drew silent again.
Can you measure that kind of useless noise??

Man Cow Chris (be it the same person or not) made another useless blurb
for self-gratification. He even threw in an "eat a dick" while disarming it
at the same time.



>  You did not hint that you even *tried* to
> contact him, them or whatever.  And then you reply to the first response,
> bitching about what someone helpfully tries to suggest might aid you in
> finding the author.  OK, I'm a shit for poking the bear.  But still, you
> could
> have just said "yeah, I tried that, and haven't heard back", but no, you
> gotta
> put him in his place. . . Sheesh.
>
>
I just didn't find it "helpful".
More like antagonistic.



> > NULL + NULL + NULL still equals nothing.
>
> Properly chastised, I'm going back to lurking.
>
>
It wasn't really about you..




> Sean
>
> PS Theo does a *WAY* better job of bitch-slapping me, by the way.  But keep
> trying!


Thanks. I suspect Theo is in a position to win many
more arguments with one-liners than lil ol me.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: licensing

Christopher Dukes
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:35:34AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote:

Look,
You gave no indication if you actually bothered to track down the author
or discuss relicensing with the author.  Enough people don't think
"Maybe I should ask the author."
You also gave a less than clear indication of "I really liked this original
implementation, and I'm looking for others interested in re-implementing
under less restrictive licensing."  

So let's drill through things.
1) Did you actually attempt to track down who might be using
a umplawny email address at university of manitoba during the
time frame?
2) Did you come across the same plawny that is working for EA?
3) Did you actually bother to contact him care of EA (Because
when he was hired at EA, he probably had to declare previous
work and may or may not have transferred rights to EA).

You are the one interested in resurrecting this beast.
The onus is you to either track down someone with the right to change
the license, or else be the point of first blame in seeing if the author
will actually enforce the copyright.
If neither appeals to you, then it's time to clearly ask for advice
on how to reimplement the behavior in an unencumbered fashion.

As for the personal attacks, you can print off this email,
fold it until it's all corners, and shove it up your ass.

--
Chris Dukes

12