On Tue, 08 May 2001, you wrote:
> On Tues, May 8 2001 muphicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But they can do this anyway.... Without making the mud open
> > content or releasing under GNU there is no way people can
> > just take your ideas and make a mud of there own.
>
> Sure they could. If your MUD is open for players, people
> can walk in, see an idea, and go code it for themselves.
> This is exactly what happens. Players play at a place for
> a long time and learn how it works, then they get sick of it
> and go create their own (better) version of it using the
> ideas they saw in the first place.
>
Yes people can, but I meant legally they cannot simply
rip off your mudlib. Even though people do and you can
almost guarantee will. There will always be parts of the mudlib
that they legally cannot. My reason for my original post was not
in any way to stop people been able to do that, my post was to
see what I was required to do to be able to copy the details I want
from the SRD to use in my mud, including from the adventure freeport.
The only legal way I may do so is if my mud is released under
the OGL. Yes not all of it has to be OGC but I intend to make
most if not all of it OGC.
The reply I made in my previous post was a reply to your comment
that I should release under OGL because it will prevent people
taking good parts of other peoples muds and improving them.
I fail to see how this would be so. If I do not release under any
licence, then there will be implied laws that apply to my work. What
they are I have no idea, but they will apply. If people can legally reuse
my work under these laws then whether I also licence the mud under
OGL will not make a blind bit of difference, since they simply ignore
the OGL licence and reuse my work under the existing laws.
The problem that they would encounter is when the existing laws
prevent certain types of reuse, that I may have allowed under OGL.
My entire point is, does it matter to people who will reuse my mud
if i do so under OGL. Surely doing so cannot harm them any more than
me not releasing under OGL, even if I made all my own work PI???
They would as I said simply not reuse my work under the OGL licence,
and instead under fair use laws.
Assuming that is anyone who intended to reuse my mud gave too hoots
about law. I for one would not be bothered about it been reused which Is
my entire reason to release under OGC, if someone wants to make money
out of it when people could play it for free already, then let them.
> > By releasing it under OGC this would ensure people could
> > take my ideas and reuse them... Without OGC in fact with no
> > licence at all people should not reuse content, ok so they will
> > and I would not be that bothered if they did, but some people
> > would!
>
> I'm not talking about out and out copying word for word, I am
> talking about reusing ideas in different ways. It seems like
> you're saying that ideas can be copyrighted, so if someone
> sees an idea (as a player, let's say), they can't go to
> their own MUD and implement the same or a similar idea?
>
No what i said in my reply to your post was that you seemed to
imply people should not release muds under OGL because it
would encorage lawsuits and prevent people going in and making
their own mud better than others based on ideas they have collected.
My point was releasing under OGL would not affect these people in
the slightest. Even if people released everything as PI there is nothing
stopping people visiting my mud and reusing anything they could
legally under fairuse laws, reuse parts of my mud regardless of the licence I
release it under, they are not obliged to accept the OGL licenece and could
simply reuse ideas so long as existing laws allowed. Sure there may be parts
of my mud that under existing laws they would not be allowed to reuse, but
they may be able to under OGL.
>
> > Yes people may just make everything PI but then it in effect
> > would be anyway.
> > The down side to your argument is that I would not be
> > able to use any of the spells or monsters from D&D since
> > I am only allowed to use them under OGC!
>
> Are you saying that I could not have a stat called
> "strength" or a spell called "fireball" or a monster
> called "a gold dragon"...even if the mechanics of each
> thing were my own implementations...without being under
> the OGC? And since almost all MUDs are going to use ideas
> like this that found their origins in D&D someplace in the
> distant past, will all of these MUDs all of a sudden have
> to come under this new licensing system?
>
>
No I am saying I cannot copy word for word spell descriptions
and monsters from the MM and DMG that I will be allowed to do
under OGL from the SRD.
I will also be using the freeport setting (with appropriate credit)
which I would again not be allowed to do so if I did not release
under OGL.
> > Besides if I don't release under OGC it would be GNU
> > like most muds and drivers are released under.. You will
> > not find many muds that are released without a licence and
> > by simply stealing ideas/code you would be in violation,
> > ok so nobody would generally complain, but releasing under
> > OGC would let people know they CAN steal bits.
>
> Almost no MUD engines are under GPL. They are generally under
> licenses that allow people to modify and redistribute, but don't
> allow commercial use. Unfortunately, that means they
> aren't compatible with the GPL either.
>
I have seen 3 out of the 7 muds I have tried that are released under GPL.
Ok so maybe you know of more, but my point is most muds are released under
a license of some sort, Whether or not the mud is released under the GPL
licence or not I can still release my mudlib which is coded in a seperate
language under the GPL licence.
The mud engine has nothing to do with my mudlib, it is in effect a
seperate entity. Sure people would not be able to run it without
agreeing to a licence for an appropriate driver but they could take
my code that is released under GPL and rip it to peaces for all I care.
However I doubt I could release my mudlib under GPL since I would
be having to release under OGL to be able to use the previously
mentioned material.
The point about not been able to reuse commercially does not make any
difference to me, since I have no intention of making money out of this.
As it happens the driver I use does allow commercial use, and since OGL
does there is no problem if I do decide to make money (which is the last
thing on my mind, I'd be happy just to finish the mudlib :-)
> So, you keep talking about stealing ideas...are you saying that
> if I go to a MUD and log in and see a spell called "Super Death
> Spell" which has a certain percentage chance of killing someone,
> I could not go and make my own version of that spell by taking the
> idea and using it myself?
>
No, I never brought up stealing. I have no problem with players
reusing ideas from other muds. In fact I will be doing the same in
my mud, and hope players will do the same with mine. Legally speaking
I'm certain you would be allowed to do so as well, and again whether
I release under OGL and say no Super Death Spell is now PI. This would
not stop you, since you would simply not accept the licence and use
the name under fair use.
My point was that if I release under OGL I can guarantee that all
the story ideas, plots, NPCS, monsters, spells and everything that
is convered by the OGC is freely available for people to reuse
in their own muds in the years to come, and that someone will
not come along and prevent people using these ideas, since once
released it will always be OGC.
Sure someone may take my mudlib and try to commercially make
a profit of it, but then I would be working on the assumption that mine
will be freely available, and I will be constantly adding to it.
Whether we lost the thread a bit there I'm not sure, but my reply
prior to this one, was basically saying that whether people can
legally reuse the mud or not they will (in most cases) and thus
releasing under OGL would not effect them. But I feel that for those
that would only ever reuse what they are legally allowed to, it may
help then get more to reuse under OGL than they would have been
able to if I had not released under OGL..
Surly regardless of how it affects me, OGL can only be a good thing
from a thirdparties point of view that wants to reuse something in the mud?
if not all the mud...
I can't see how it could be any worse than not releasing it under any
licence other than the laws that apply on any personal work?
Wow thats the longest post I've ever made :-) hope someone takes
the time to read it ;-)
(Um and If I sound like I'm moaning in any of that I appologise, this is
meant as a constructive reply, at least I hope it is.)
bb.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
