>> 4) Any servers should be free and open, that is to say, not pay for use/play.
>I am not sure 4) is fair. If people have hardware and time they can >donate to run a server that is one thing, but if a CF derivative ever >becomes very popular and needs a farm to run on, it is likely a fee >would have to be introduced to cover hardware costs, and possibly even >hire full time admins/dms/mapmakers/artists. As long as the source >code is released under GPL and anyone is free to set up their own >server I would still consider that server "free and open", I see no >problems there. The subscribers would be paying for services that >accompany the game, not the game itself. When/if pay for play servers >are introduced they could send pay for play information to the >metaserver, thus avoiding confusion. >Then again someone could also make a new tileset and their own maps, >and say "do not redistribute" whilst running them on their own server, >for which they could charge money. I am not sure there is anything GPL >can do about that. I agree that it would be fair to still put servers that require a fee to play in the metaserver - it is indeed true that somebody may want to pay the server costs in that way. However, I think that any new content material (maps, graphics) should be freely redistributable as part of the Crossfire project. A server that refuses to share its content with the rest of the community should not be allowed to stay in the metaserver listing, IMHO, because it goes against the spirit of freedom that drives the project. _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
