No. Diku license:
-- 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. http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html #1. If you disagree, that's fine; but it's not open source. Hell, read the first line of the Diku Rules: !! DikuMud is NOT Public Domain, shareware, careware or the like !! Also: You may under no circumstances make profit on *ANY* part of DikuMud in any possible way. You may under no circumstances charge money for distributing any part of dikumud - this includes the usual $5 charge for "sending the disk" or "just for the disk" etc. By breaking these rules you violate the agreement between us and the University, and hence will be sued. Other "violations: If you publish *any* part of dikumud, we as creators must appear in the article, and the article must be clearly copyrighted subject to this license. Before publishing you must first send us a message, by snail-mail or e-mail, and inform us what, where and when you are publishing (remember to include your address, name etc.) Hell, OSD log 1.5: *1.5 allow "reasonable reproduction cost" to meet GPL terms. Diku License explicitly forbids this. Rom license: 4) Before opening a ROM-based mud, you must send email to the author ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), so that I can keep track of sites for future code releases. While this isn't a "violation" per se, how often do you see "Before using this newest Linux Kernel you MUST e-mail Linux Torvalds."? Etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Whiting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 2:27 AM Subject: Re: Incredible violation of trust and ethics, what should I do? > "In general, open source refers to any program whose source code is made > available for use or modification as users or other developers see fit. > (Historically, the makers of proprietary software have generally not > made source code available.) Open source software is usually developed > as a public collaboration and made freely available." > Taken from > http://searchsolaris.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid12_gci212709,00.html > > I'd also suggest checking out the following definition of opensource > (taken from the open source initiative) > http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php > > Rom is VERY much open source. One does not have to be a part of the OSI, > or licensed under such to be open source. One simply has to adhere to a > few basic guidelines, the primary of which being that the source is open > to all for modifications (hence, open source). > > If you picked up your local Rom distro NOT open source, you would have > picked it up without any source whatsoever involved in it. Just a binary > attatched that may/may not work on your server, and you could not modify > one bit. > > Rom meets every definition of the OSI, as well as the exact paragraph > that I just quoted. Those were just two of the many many links that came > up with a minor bit of searching. Rom is VERY much distributed open > source. You can freely re-distribute it, modify the code as you wish, do > whatever you want with it. > > Obviously there's a few things that you CAN'T do with it, but anything > must have its guidelines. > > > On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 01:59, Jeremy Hill wrote: > > ROM is not distributed open source. > > ------------------------ > > -- > TJW :Head tech, designer, bum:P > Mud :http://dreamless.wolfstream.net > telnet :telnet://dreamless.wolfstream.net 9275 > OLC Pages:http://olc.wolfstream.net > > > > -- > ROM mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.rom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rom
