Help me find a 100% free, graphical mud.
Gøran Eliassen
I'm trying to find a 100% free graphical mud, whit good graphics.
Hopefully mideval...
Please help me!!!
E-MAIL: Elias...@Hotmail.com
Gøran Eliassen
Check out www.EraOnlie.net you'll love it! When it opens.......
Ilya <il...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com> wrote in message
news:383C450C...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com...
> Otis Viles wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:17:51 -0800, Ilya
<il...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com>
> > wrote:
> > >As far as I am concerned, and without any intention to be unkind to
> > >"Gøran Eliassen" -- I hope there never is such a thing. It would do
> > >us all some good I think, my own site included, if we were to move
> > >in the direction of eliminating the free games altogether. The old
> > >saying has certain application here:
> >
> > Bleh. Bad Ilya, no biscuit.
> >
>
> Hehee! Gave me the first smile of the day that reached my eyes.
> Thanks.
>
>
> > >"You may not always get what you pay for, but you almost never
> > >get what you don't pay for."
> >
> > So explain Linux...
>
> The "almost never" explains it. There can be exceptions, and have been.
> There have even been exceptions in the mudding world, but darned few.
>
> Money involvement one way or the other would drive the truly useless
> (and there are numberless of those!) and clueless and uncreative types
> out of the adminning of muds completely. O Happy thought!
>
> It's no panacea, but nothing is. I do believe it would represent a
> vast improvement though. I'll put up the supporting article on the
> site later, friend.
>
> Cheers!
> --
> Ilya (at) gamecommandos (dot) com a mud list & review site
> www.gamecommandos.com for online roleplaying games
chy...@ludens.elte.hu
Chyron
Ilya
>
> In article <Uyg_3.16000$1C4.1...@news1.online.no>, "Gøran Eliassen":
> > Hi,
> > I'm trying to find a 100% free graphical mud, whit good graphics.
> > Hopefully mideval...
> > Please help me!!!
> > E-MAIL: Elias...@Hotmail.com
> >
> Sorry, but unless I'm very much mistaken, there's no such thing.
>
> Chyron
As far as I am concerned, and without any intention to be unkind to
"Gøran Eliassen" -- I hope there never is such a thing. It would do
us all some good I think, my own site included, if we were to move
in the direction of eliminating the free games altogether. The old
saying has certain application here:
"You may not always get what you pay for, but you almost never
get what you don't pay for."
--
Otis Viles
>"Gøran Eliassen" -- I hope there never is such a thing. It would do
>us all some good I think, my own site included, if we were to move
>in the direction of eliminating the free games altogether. The old
>saying has certain application here:
Bleh. Bad Ilya, no biscuit.
>"You may not always get what you pay for, but you almost never
>get what you don't pay for."
So explain Linux...
--
Otis Viles: Mudder, RPGer, KMFDM fan, Internet Oracle Priest
cier...@ic.net, http://ic.net/~cierhart
dr...@stormclouds.mudsrus.com, http://stormclouds.mudsrus.com
Making iDirt 1.82 a safer place, one bug at a time.
Ilya
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:17:51 -0800, Ilya <il...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com>
> wrote:
> >As far as I am concerned, and without any intention to be unkind to
> >"Gøran Eliassen" -- I hope there never is such a thing. It would do
> >us all some good I think, my own site included, if we were to move
> >in the direction of eliminating the free games altogether. The old
> >saying has certain application here:
>
> Bleh. Bad Ilya, no biscuit.
>
Hehee! Gave me the first smile of the day that reached my eyes.
Thanks.
> >"You may not always get what you pay for, but you almost never
> >get what you don't pay for."
>
> So explain Linux...
The "almost never" explains it. There can be exceptions, and have been.
There have even been exceptions in the mudding world, but darned few.
Money involvement one way or the other would drive the truly useless
(and there are numberless of those!) and clueless and uncreative types
out of the adminning of muds completely. O Happy thought!
It's no panacea, but nothing is. I do believe it would represent a
vast improvement though. I'll put up the supporting article on the
site later, friend.
Cheers!
Otis Viles
wrote:
Wow, nice language, did you learn English from watching the American movie
"Pulp Fiction"?
Jeff Lutes
Ilya wrote in message <383C450C...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com>...
(snip)
>> Bleh. Bad Ilya, no biscuit.
No, No, I agree...Bad Llya, no biscuit!
>> >"You may not always get what you pay for, but you almost never
>> >get what you don't pay for."
>>
>> So explain Linux...
>The "almost never" explains it. There can be exceptions, and have been.
>There have even been exceptions in the mudding world, but darned few.
I don't agree with your "almost never" here. There are many, MANY pieces of
free software that doesn't suck.
>Money involvement one way or the other would drive the truly useless
>(and there are numberless of those!) and clueless and uncreative types
>out of the adminning of muds completely. O Happy thought!
OK, define "truly useless, clueless, and uncreative types". Not to be an
a**, but what you see as clueless may be someone with a larger plan that you
cannot see, and therefore only appears that way (I'm NOT saying that there
aren't useless, clueless, and uncreative people trying to admin muds, don't
get me wrong). But I can also see the "spoiled little rich kid with
absolutely no clue and no creativity getting daddy to pay for his mud". You
are also bordering on a form of sensorship...somethign we don't EVEN want to
start discussing here. I think that a mud will take care of itself. If a
mud is run correctly, there will be people that play there. If the mud is a
piece of crap, people might visit, but won't stay long.
Martin Keegan
>I don't agree with your "almost never" here. There are many, MANY pieces of
>free software that doesn't suck.
The generic StockMUD problem (which seems to be centred on derivatives
of the Diku codebase, though this could just be an impression of mine which
is wrong) is reminiscent of the 30% of Freshmeat ten-liner utilities
which are utter crap. (figure chosen arbitrarily: there is crap on Freshmeat;
no-one denies this)
>>Money involvement one way or the other would drive the truly useless
>>(and there are numberless of those!) and clueless and uncreative types
>>out of the adminning of muds completely. O Happy thought!
>
>OK, define "truly useless, clueless, and uncreative types". Not to be an
>a**, but what you see as clueless may be someone with a larger plan that you
>cannot see, and therefore only appears that way (I'm NOT saying that there
>aren't useless, clueless, and uncreative people trying to admin muds, don't
>get me wrong). But I can also see the "spoiled little rich kid with
This is all rather reminiscent of the "Stock muds considered harmful"
thread of two years ago.
>absolutely no clue and no creativity getting daddy to pay for his mud". You
>are also bordering on a form of sensorship...somethign we don't EVEN want to
>start discussing here. I think that a mud will take care of itself. If a
Are you attempting to exercise prior restraint and NOT discuss censorship? ;)
>mud is run correctly, there will be people that play there. If the mud is a
>piece of crap, people might visit, but won't stay long.
Ah...
So we shouldn't care about the crap muds, cause people won't play them
for too long.. this almost works, except that people who play a lot of
crap muds will come to crave only the type of muds that they've been
exposed to.
What's needed is more diversity. Since we're not going to get rid of the
twink stock muds, people should shut up and write some original muds from
the ground up.
Mk
Ilya
>
> Ilya wrote in message <. . .>
> (snip)
>
> >> Bleh. Bad Ilya, no biscuit.
>
> No, No, I agree...Bad Llya, no biscuit!
You are so funny!
>
> >> >"You may not always get what you pay for, but you almost never
> >> >get what you don't pay for."
> >>
> >> So explain Linux...
>
> >The "almost never" explains it. There can be exceptions,
> >and have been. There have even been exceptions in the
> >mudding world, but darned few.
>
I am not sure I have made the proper distinction, so I'll try to do
so now. My immediate remarks, and my feelings on this case, were
and are now motivated by an interest in muds and mudding, and in
the question of whether or not people using mud-related code-bases
are either
(a) never allowed to use those code-bases in any commercial way; or
(b) may be allowed to use those code-bases in any commercial way
Linux was brought up as a counterexample of my original contention,
and I answered quickly to try to deal with it as narrowly as
possible. But honestly, Linux does not fit the situation,
because people _can_ and _do_ use linux for commercial purposes.
As for whether the software was developed for free, or with
volunteer energies, or whatever, is not a question that I am
attempting to deal with in my assertions.
>
> >Money involvement one way or the other would drive the truly
> >useless (and there are numberless of those!) and clueless and
> >uncreative types out of the adminning of muds completely. O
> >Happy thought!
>
> OK, define "truly useless, clueless, and uncreative types".
<snip>
It's obviously a fool's errand to try to define who these
useless, clueless, uncreative types are. Just like Anthony
Trollope's defense of the use of the term "Gentleman" in
England a century or two ago, the final definition could
not be formulated into law, or even written down, but he
knew one when he saw one, and so did everybody else who
was talking about it. Just because a term eluded
precise definition didn't mean the term was itself useless.
>You
> are also bordering on a form of sensorship...somethign we
> don't EVEN want to start discussing here.
Censorship involves restraint by some process of law or
force, usually if not always involving government. I
advocate none of the above, and therefore nothing I said
was even vaguely akin to, much less bordering on, censorship.
>I think that a mud will take care of itself. If a mud is
>run correctly, there will be people that play there. If the
>mud is a piece of crap, people might visit, but won't stay
>long.
True enough. But I'm not worried about the player base or
the attendance. I'm writing on behalf of, and to preserve
if possible, the admins and immortals and their kin.
Too many of our most creative and productive minds in the
mudding world are finally forced by economic concerns to
abandon it in search of activities which can provide at
least a minimal reward. If more code bases were out there
and were promoted which allowed for commercial use, then
perhaps we would have saved more of these creative/productive
minds for the hobby/art and this would have been a good thing.
Matt Chatterley
> In article <s3t75j...@corp.supernews.com>, Jeff Lutes wrote:
> >I don't agree with your "almost never" here. There are many, MANY pieces of
> >free software that doesn't suck.
>
> The generic StockMUD problem (which seems to be centred on derivatives
> of the Diku codebase, though this could just be an impression of mine which
> is wrong) is reminiscent of the 30% of Freshmeat ten-liner utilities
> which are utter crap. (figure chosen arbitrarily: there is crap on Freshmeat;
> no-one denies this)
Ditto. While there is a lot of free or semi-free (read: shareware style)
software which does not suck, there is also quite a lot which sucks
heftily. There are often several thousand (exaggeration?) programs to do
the same basic task, which was done *well* by one or two original people
a while ago.
That said, every now and then, someone implements an original idea.
StockMUDs spring up when people want their own game because it'd be cool,
because they're pissed off with where they're currently playing and want
to 'break away', or, more rarely, when they *do have* original ideas, but
lack the technical knowledge to implement them.
The first two groups should be dragged outside, tied to a big stick and
shot, while the third deserve help, encouragement, etc. Oh for a perfect
world.
> >>Money involvement one way or the other would drive the truly useless
> >>(and there are numberless of those!) and clueless and uncreative types
> >>out of the adminning of muds completely. O Happy thought!
> >
> >OK, define "truly useless, clueless, and uncreative types". Not to be an
> >a**, but what you see as clueless may be someone with a larger plan that you
> >cannot see, and therefore only appears that way (I'm NOT saying that there
> >aren't useless, clueless, and uncreative people trying to admin muds, don't
> >get me wrong). But I can also see the "spoiled little rich kid with
>
> This is all rather reminiscent of the "Stock muds considered harmful"
> thread of two years ago.
Was that really two years? Maybe its time we stirred it all up again,
then Martin. ;)
> >absolutely no clue and no creativity getting daddy to pay for his mud". You
> >are also bordering on a form of sensorship...somethign we don't EVEN want to
> >start discussing here. I think that a mud will take care of itself. If a
>
> Are you attempting to exercise prior restraint and NOT discuss censorship? ;)
Bah, why bother. Looking at the reems of StockMUDs out there, we *should*
censor! <insert maniacal grin here>
> >mud is run correctly, there will be people that play there. If the mud is a
> >piece of crap, people might visit, but won't stay long.
>
> Ah...
... ...
> So we shouldn't care about the crap muds, cause people won't play them
> for too long.. this almost works, except that people who play a lot of
> crap muds will come to crave only the type of muds that they've been
> exposed to.
OR the newbies who encounter a few crap muds will give up and go away,
without ever discovering a decent game which might provide them with
hours of fun, entertainment and hoards of new friends.
> What's needed is more diversity. Since we're not going to get rid of the
> twink stock muds, people should shut up and write some original muds from
> the ground up.
Game, set and match - Keegan.
-- Matt Chatterley
".. You live for the fight, when its all that you've got .."
Jon Bon Jovi; Livin' on a Prayer, as always.
psdi...@my-deja.com
Ilya <il...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com> wrote:
> Money involvement one way or the other would drive the truly useless
> (and there are numberless of those!) and clueless and uncreative types
> out of the adminning of muds completely. O Happy thought!
The DGD LPMud driver has been commercially available for years. We're
yet to see a commercial DGD mud open it's doors.
Is it worth also driving out the free innovative muds that without a
doubt are the forefathers of today's commercial muds?
Who are we to take away someone's liberty to run a bad mud? Because
some are having difficulty marketing or otherwise making their good mud
accessible is hardly an excuse.
Paul
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jon A. Lambert
>Jeff Lutes wrote:
>>
>> >The "almost never" explains it. There can be exceptions,
>> >and have been. There have even been exceptions in the
>> >mudding world, but darned few.
>>
>I am not sure I have made the proper distinction, so I'll try to do
>so now. My immediate remarks, and my feelings on this case, were
>and are now motivated by an interest in muds and mudding, and in
>the question of whether or not people using mud-related code-bases
>are either
>(a) never allowed to use those code-bases in any commercial way; or
>
Please correct me if I'm wrong here. The standard GPL allows one
to profit through the execution of the code, but not through code
distribution (licensing).
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted..."
However many codebases put additional non-commercial
restrictions in the license preventing running the program for profit.
That is primary difference in why Linux is able to prosper in a
commercial environment, but many mud servers cannot.
>Too many of our most creative and productive minds in the
>mudding world are finally forced by economic concerns to
>abandon it in search of activities which can provide at
>least a minimal reward. If more code bases were out there
>and were promoted which allowed for commercial use, then
>perhaps we would have saved more of these creative/productive
>minds for the hobby/art and this would have been a good thing.
>
Yet such codebases do exist and have existed for some time.
It would seem that creative and productive minds would have
flocked to them by now. If not, why not? Perhaps there is
something missing from your theory? :)
--
--* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email: jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com *--
--* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://jlsysinc.home.netcom.com> *--
--* "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson *--
Jon A. Lambert
>
>You could say that, but look at really how it is used. The OS is used by
>companies to run their software, which they can make money off. That does
>not mean they are making money from Linux. Companies like RedHat,
>technically are not making money from Linux because they are making money
>off developing software for the operating system. This is how I view it. I
>do not think that Linux is used for commercial purposes, technically
>speaking.
Linux is definately being used for commercial purposes. In every legal
and technical sense. The license for Linux allows execution for
commercial purposes. If it did not, Linux would have NEVER made it
outside the university campus or hobbyist box.
>I'd also like to disagree in promoting the commercial use of code bases. If
>commercial use were allowed then many parts of the code that people put good
>hard work into would be exploited into a profiteering venture (no Threshold
>flames plz).
Yes and that is their choice. If you choose to contribute code to a project
licensed under the GPL, your code CAN and WILL be exploited commercially
although in limited ways. If MudOS (and TMI?) was under GPL, the "Threshold
problem" would be moot.
Ilya
>
> In article <383C450C...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com>,
> Ilya <il...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com> wrote:
>
> > Money involvement one way or the other would drive the truly useless
> > (and there are numberless of those!) and clueless and uncreative types
> > out of the adminning of muds completely. O Happy thought!
>
> The DGD LPMud driver has been commercially available for years. We're
> yet to see a commercial DGD mud open it's doors.
Only one entity, to my knowledge, has purchased a license. And they
are working on a project now. In the meantime, the owner (Acuity)
had not even _considered_ making licenses available. They just weren't
doing it. IN fact, I had asked them to do so long before they became
willing.
When they did, I was already committed to another venture. But
Skotos did come along, and they are working on a venture now.
>
> Is it worth also driving out the free innovative muds that without a
> doubt are the forefathers of today's commercial muds?
Who wants to drive them out? Not I. Drive out the pinheads maybe, or
the dufuses. But leave these venerable code bases. I do not advocate
their destruction. I simply advocate a way to save the admins who burn
out on them and leave the field, but who might not burn out if they
had a commercial-use option.
> Who are we to take away someone's liberty to run a bad mud? Because
> some are having difficulty marketing or otherwise making their good mud
> accessible is hardly an excuse.
Fiery words "to take away someone's liberty" -- but I advocate no
such thing. Let all the dufuses run all the foolish muds they want,
and let all the excellent coders/admins who wish to run non-commercial
muds do so. But some will try the commercial angle, as some already
have. The good ones will still succeed. And the fools will be driven
out even faster.
>
> Paul
Ilya
"Jon A. Lambert" wrote:
>
> Ilya wrote in message <383EC091...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com>...
> >Jeff Lutes wrote:
> >>
> >> >The "almost never" explains it. There can be exceptions,
> >> >and have been. There have even been exceptions in the
> >> >mudding world, but darned few.
> >>
> >I am not sure I have made the proper distinction, so I'll try to do
> >so now. My immediate remarks, and my feelings on this case, were
> >and are now motivated by an interest in muds and mudding, and in
> >the question of whether or not people using mud-related code-bases
> >are either
> >(a) never allowed to use those code-bases in any commercial way; or
> >(b) may be allowed to use those code-bases in any commercial way
> >
>
> Please correct me if I'm wrong here. The standard GPL allows one
> to profit through the execution of the code, but not through code
> distribution (licensing).
Sounds right to me!
>
> "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
> running the Program is not restricted..."
>
> However many codebases put additional non-commercial
> restrictions in the license preventing running the program for profit.
> That is primary difference in why Linux is able to prosper in a
> commercial environment, but many mud servers cannot.
>
> >Too many of our most creative and productive minds in the
> >mudding world are finally forced by economic concerns to
> >abandon it in search of activities which can provide at
> >least a minimal reward. If more code bases were out there
> >and were promoted which allowed for commercial use, then
> >perhaps we would have saved more of these creative/productive
> >minds for the hobby/art and this would have been a good thing.
> >
>
> Yet such codebases do exist and have existed for some time.
> It would seem that creative and productive minds would have
> flocked to them by now. If not, why not? Perhaps there is
> something missing from your theory? :)
>
Agreed -- more information is needed. A broadening of theory
somewhat. I'll gladly accept your input.
This I know -- many, if not most, involved in the mudding
world from the admin end are not even aware of the availability
of these code bases which may be used in such a way. Perhaps
that's all the info needed to support the theory. Perhaps not.
Not sure, friend.
Suggestions?
> --
> --* Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email: jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com *--
> --* Mud Server Developer's Page <http://jlsysinc.home.netcom.com> *--
> --* "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson *--
--
cl...@cp.net
> Please correct me if I'm wrong here. The standard GPL allows one
> to profit through the execution of the code, but not through code
> distribution (licensing).
Jon, please go re-read the relevent documents at opensource.org.
The GPL does not restrict the attempt to make money from softwre in
any regard. The GPL is entirely supportive of attempting to profit
from software development and sales. It merely doesn't specify how
to do that -- which is causing a lot of consternation as the freedom
to redistribute clause is considered to violate the basic tenets of
most business models.
What the GPL restricts and controls is the freedom to distribute.
As soon as a GPL product is distributed the rights to its source
code follow _and_ the freedom to redistribute under the same terms
follow as well (ie the free right to redistribute). This is what is
colloquially know as the "GPL virus" (a term Bruce Perens really
doesn't like). This is also the single feature that most weakens
the GPL for use in MUD servers -- the value of a MUD server is not
in its distribution or use, but in its tertiary products. As such
the server in its normal practice doesn't invoke any of the reasons
or motive to distribute anything which would invoke the GPL.
The core point however: The GPL does not restrict seeling of GPL
software for money. In fact that is explicitly allowed -- as long
as the people you sell too also get the rights to freely
redistribute with source etc etc etc.
Y'all should really hang out on license-discuss more.
> "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
> running the Program is not restricted..."
Yup, which is among the reasons that I (or an ISP) can take a Linux
box and charge for services on it (a practice which is oddly popular
with ISPs).
> Yet such codebases do exist and have existed for some time.
> It would seem that creative and productive minds would have
> flocked to them by now. If not, why not? Perhaps there is
> something missing from your theory? :)
I seem doomed to quote Martin Keegan -- badly as always. I'll
resist this time.
--
J C Lawrence Internet: cl...@kanga.nu
----------(*) Internet: co...@kanga.nu
...Honorary Member of Clan McFud -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...
Ilya
> >mudding world are finally forced by economic concerns to
> >abandon it in search of activities which can provide at
> >least a minimal reward. If more code bases were out there
> >and were promoted which allowed for commercial use, then
> >perhaps we would have saved more of these creative/productive
> >minds for the hobby/art and this would have been a good thing.
> >
>
> It would seem that creative and productive minds would have
> flocked to them by now. If not, why not? Perhaps there is
> something missing from your theory? :)
Hello again!
I did think of another angle to add to what I've already
responded, so here goes.
Plenty of mud developers are _not_ being pressed by monetary
concerns. For these, at least, there is little risk of losing
them because of economic concerns. They have independent means,
or well-paying jobs with a bit of time left over for hobby, or
whatever.
So _these_ creative and productive minds haven't flocked to
the commercially usable code bases because they don't really
care, or don't need to, or are locked into other code bases,
having invested years in coding for them.
In short: many don't need the option, others are heavily
invested elsewhere, and a whole bunch don't even know.
I guess I'm really only wanting to make sure that the other
type of developer has this option, and knows it. Those for whom
a few dollars from this activity might make a big difference,
or at least enough of a difference to keep them involved -- I
hope they can be kept in the field by having the option of
commercial use for their work.
I've been puttering around in the mudding world for years and,
quite honestly, never really realized that there were any
'ok-for-commercial-use' code bases out there. Now I see there
are in fact several. Yay!
psdi...@my-deja.com
Ilya <il...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com> wrote:
> psdi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <383C450C...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com>,
> > Ilya <il...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Money involvement one way or the other would drive the truly
useless
> > > (and there are numberless of those!) and clueless and uncreative
types
> > > out of the adminning of muds completely. O Happy thought!
> >
> > The DGD LPMud driver has been commercially available for years.
We're
> > yet to see a commercial DGD mud open it's doors.
>
> Only one entity, to my knowledge, has purchased a license. And they
> are working on a project now. In the meantime, the owner (Acuity)
> had not even _considered_ making licenses available. They just
weren't
> doing it. IN fact, I had asked them to do so long before they became
> willing.
>
> When they did, I was already committed to another venture. But
> Skotos did come along, and they are working on a venture now.
DGD was commercially available to anyone for 2 years (give or take) and
not a single license was purchased. Exclusive commercial rights were
then sold to iChat for their chat server, which was licensed to Yahoo
as "Yahoo Chat" for a while. My guess is that Yahoo dumped/did not
renew or whatever within a year. I hadn't heard anything since until
Skotos.
>
> >
> > Is it worth also driving out the free innovative muds that without a
> > doubt are the forefathers of today's commercial muds?
>
> Who wants to drive them out? Not I. Drive out the pinheads maybe, or
> the dufuses. But leave these venerable code bases. I do not advocate
> their destruction. I simply advocate a way to save the admins who burn
> out on them and leave the field, but who might not burn out if they
> had a commercial-use option.
I don't agree, because as pointed out above, a commercial option was
available in the past and it didn't change a thing. Come to think of
it, the commercial ventures that did take place seem to have had no
impact whatsoever (cf. what was the name of that commercial mud that
ran on an old lpmud driver, by permission from lars, that caused so
much debate?).
>
> > Who are we to take away someone's liberty to run a bad mud? Because
> > some are having difficulty marketing or otherwise making their good
mud
> > accessible is hardly an excuse.
>
> Fiery words "to take away someone's liberty" -- but I advocate no
> such thing. Let all the dufuses run all the foolish muds they want,
> and let all the excellent coders/admins who wish to run non-commercial
> muds do so. But some will try the commercial angle, as some already
> have. The good ones will still succeed. And the fools will be driven
> out even faster.
I guess I was having a knee-jerk reaction to your comment "eliminating
the free games altogether". Wait till you see the some of the multi-
user 3D solutions coming our way, which are either free or close to
it. Free, shoddy versions of Everquest and Asheron's Call are only a
matter a time (2 years?). Can you imagine the popularity of a 3D stock-
mud?
psdi...@my-deja.com
Ilya <il...@spam.free.gamecommandos.com> wrote:
> "Jon A. Lambert" wrote:
> > Yet such codebases do exist and have existed for some time.
> > It would seem that creative and productive minds would have
> > flocked to them by now. If not, why not? Perhaps there is
> > something missing from your theory? :)
> >
>
> somewhat. I'll gladly accept your input.
>
> This I know -- many, if not most, involved in the mudding
> world from the admin end are not even aware of the availability
> of these code bases which may be used in such a way. Perhaps
> that's all the info needed to support the theory. Perhaps not.
> Not sure, friend.
>
> Suggestions?
If I had to put money on it, I would say that there is no shortage of
people wanting to make use of the commercial options. The problem
being, a project with only 2 or 3 staff is far more likely to flop than
a project with a dozen or more. Text mud profit divided 12 ways is not
very much.
Jon A. Lambert
>Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Please correct me if I'm wrong here. The standard GPL allows one
>> to profit through the execution of the code, but not through code
>> distribution (licensing).
>
>Jon, please go re-read the relevent documents at opensource.org.
>
>The GPL does not restrict the attempt to make money from softwre in
>any regard. The GPL is entirely supportive of attempting to profit
>from software development and sales.
Yes, you are right. It is not explicit, except in the case of releasing
binaries without source.
OTOH, it is implicitly subversive of some avenues of profit.
Some might suggest that the GPL is a form of communism
on intellectual property. (duck) ;->
I'm more partial to releasing source code as public domain or not at all.
cl...@cp.net
> cl...@cp.net wrote in message ...
>>Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>The GPL does not restrict the attempt to make money from softwre in
>>any regard. The GPL is entirely supportive of attempting to profit
>>from software development and sales.
> Yes, you are right. It is not explicit, except in the case of releasing
> binaries without source.
<nod>
> OTOH, it is implicitly subversive of some avenues of profit.
> Some might suggest that the GPL is a form of communism
> on intellectual property. (duck) ;->
This is something I've been considering writing an article on as I
suspect that many don't understand the philosophical scope of the
moral implications of OSS. Its not a socialistic, communistic, or
even particularly political piece of doctrine, but the definition of
an acceptable mode of exchange among the members of an econmy where
the majority of the primary consumers of a product never directly
reference the producers of that product.
> I'm more partial to releasing source code as public domain or not at all.
I've become fond of the BSD licenses with a healthy respect for the
limitations of the GPL-model. Its the old vertical vs horizontal
market thing again.
Jon A. Lambert
>Hello again!
>
>I did think of another angle to add to what I've already
>responded, so here goes.
>
>Plenty of mud developers are _not_ being pressed by monetary
>concerns. For these, at least, there is little risk of losing
>them because of economic concerns. They have independent means,
>or well-paying jobs with a bit of time left over for hobby, or
>whatever.
>
>So _these_ creative and productive minds haven't flocked to
>the commercially usable code bases because they don't really
>care, or don't need to, or are locked into other code bases,
>having invested years in coding for them.
Yes, that certainly matches the characteristics of many admins
that I know.
>I guess I'm really only wanting to make sure that the other
>type of developer has this option, and knows it. Those for whom
>a few dollars from this activity might make a big difference,
>or at least enough of a difference to keep them involved -- I
>hope they can be kept in the field by having the option of
>commercial use for their work.
For some awful reason there are millions of well-educated people
out there who lack basic entrepreneurial skills. There's a huge leap
between "wanting money" and "making money". It's just not enough
to be creative and productive. Unless muds provide actual "jobs"
in the comfortable traditional paternal sense for these people, most
will still be at a total loss at how to collect the nickel.
>I've been puttering around in the mudding world for years and,
>quite honestly, never really realized that there were any
>'ok-for-commercial-use' code bases out there. Now I see there
>are in fact several. Yay!
The idea entered your head and you did the research. Bingo.
You exhibit alarming symptoms of one of the basic skills of
entrepreneurship. Collecting and distributing the information will
provide another research path for others. Is it helpful? Certainly.
But the old horse and water cliché is still operative.
:-)
Felix A. Croes
>[...]
> DGD was commercially available to anyone for 2 years (give or take) and
> not a single license was purchased. Exclusive commercial rights were
> then sold to iChat for their chat server, which was licensed to Yahoo
> as "Yahoo Chat" for a while. My guess is that Yahoo dumped/did not
> renew or whatever within a year. I hadn't heard anything since until
> Skotos.
Officially, DGD was commercially available on very advantageous terms
from August 6th, 1993 till January 9th, 1996. Two years is a good
approximation, since DGD only got multi-user a few months after the
first release, and since I refused one attempt to license DGD on the old
terms while already in negotiation with iChat.
During this time I received hundreds of enquiries about commercial use
that all led to nothing. About a dozen times, I was assured that a
commercial mudlib development project had already started. I was
prepared to live on sardines for a while, but about halfway 1995 I was
broke.
iChat used DGD as the basis for its ROOMS server, which was used by
Yahoo and many others. iChat eventually rewrote the chat server without
using DGD, creating ROOMS 3.0, and as far as I know, today's Yahoo Chat
is derived from that version.
>[...]
> I guess I was having a knee-jerk reaction to your comment "eliminating
> the free games altogether". Wait till you see the some of the multi-
> user 3D solutions coming our way, which are either free or close to
> it. Free, shoddy versions of Everquest and Asheron's Call are only a
> matter a time (2 years?). Can you imagine the popularity of a 3D stock-
> mud?
UOX?
Regards,
Dworkin
tel...@xenon.triode.net.au
>> to profit through the execution of the code, but not through code
>> distribution (licensing).
> Sounds right to me!
Sounds wrong to me, distribution and licensing are completely different
concepts. Licencing is all about preventing distribution, or throttling
it back to a single channel. In terms of economics, think about supply and
demand -- if you restrict supply, the price goes up. Red Hat can and does
make a profit from distributing Linux, they can't and don't make a profit
from licensing. The fact that other people also distribute Linux in parallel
prevents Red Hat from screwing the market but it does not prevent Red Hat
from making money on distribution.
- Tel
Scatter
>Jon A. Lambert <jlsy...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I'm more partial to releasing source code as public domain or not at all.
>I've become fond of the BSD licenses with a healthy respect for the
>limitations of the GPL-model. Its the old vertical vs horizontal
>market thing again.
What are the main differences between the GPL and the BSD licences?
--
Scatter ///\oo/\\\
Lars Duening
wrote:
(License lawyers beware: I am paraphrasing)
The BSD license is very permissive: as long as the original author(s)
receive credit in a place where the endusers can see it, you can do
with the code whatever you want. You can even make it a commercial,
closed-source proprietary product and found your software empire with
it.
Under the (L)GPL, this step is impossible: the source code for
distributed products has to remain freely available. Furthermore, the
GPL prohibits distribution of code which has to be linked with non-GPL
parts in order to function.
NB: The original BSD license also requires that the author credits are
listed in advertisement material. Since this proved to be a hindrance,
most BSD'ish licenses (IIRC the X license is one) dropped this clause.
--
Lars Duening; la...@bearnip.com
(Currently I can check my mail only occasionally)
Andru Luvisi
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to find a 100% free graphical mud, whit good graphics.
> Hopefully mideval...
>
> Please help me!!!
>
> E-MAIL: Elias...@Hotmail.com
The only one I'm aware of is MAGE: http://mage.rulez.org/
Andru
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andru Luvisi | http://libweb.sonoma.edu/ |
| Programmer/Analyst | Library Resources Online |
| Ruben Salazar Library |-----------------------------------------|
| Sonoma State University | http://www.belleprovence.com/ |
| luv...@andru.sonoma.edu | Textile imports from Provence, France |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andru Luvisi
[snip]
> Please correct me if I'm wrong here. The standard GPL allows one
> to profit through the execution of the code, but not through code
> distribution (licensing).
The *only* restriction the gpl places on charging is when you are
charging for the source code separately.
Examples:
I sell you gcc, with source, for $1,000,000. Just fine.
I sell you gcc, without source, for $1,000,000, with a written offer
to give you the source for the cost of distribution (say $20). Just
fine.
I sell you gcc, without source, for $20, with a written offer to give
you the source for $1,000,000. Very, very unfine, because I have
effectively denied you access to the source, thereby depriving you of
your freedom to have, modify, and redistribute it.
The GPL is about freedom, not money. The *only* money restriction in
the GPL is intended to prevent people from *using* money to take away
their customer's freedoms.
cl...@cp.net
> What are the main differences between the GPL and the BSD licences?
Opensource.org covers this far more clearly than I will. However,
loosely, the GPL is viral and requires subsequent use to be under
the same license. BSD has no viral properties, and makes no
restrictions on subsequent use or license beyond a possible
requirement for a licensing clause.
Martin Keegan
>>I think that a mud will take care of itself. If a mud is
>>run correctly, there will be people that play there. If the
>>mud is a piece of crap, people might visit, but won't stay
>>long.
>
>True enough. But I'm not worried about the player base or
Just for the record I must dispute the "but won't stay there long"
line and its blind acceptance, but that's not why I'm posting.
>Too many of our most creative and productive minds in the
>mudding world are finally forced by economic concerns to
>abandon it in search of activities which can provide at
>least a minimal reward. If more code bases were out there
>and were promoted which allowed for commercial use, then
Now the Linux "counterexample" raised against you actually comes back
to help; since the Linux kernel, OS and operating environment are all
largely under free licences, it is possible, paradoxicly, for the
system to be exploited commercially. I'm sure we couldn't do this
with Minix.
So too mud server codebases. Geneticly we have various groupings of
server codebases which are related to one another by derivation or
inspiration. More important, however, is the typological distinction
along a sort of hack'n'slash <-----> RPG <-----> MOO <-----> talker
continuum. What we find is that there are almost two separate communities,
the Diku/AberMUD crowd of D&D-style games (and I stress the word "games"),
and most of the other types of mud on the other side of the divide.
The Diku mob doesn't know or care about the existence of MOO/MUSH/LP, etc,
and the MOO/MUSH mob look down scornfully on the Diku people (to whom
they should be grateful for attracting losers and troublemakers away
from their own systems).
None of these communities (however you count them) is significantly
communally aware of the issues familiar to the Free Software/Open Source
movement, and it shows. One interesting cultural artefact demonstrating
this is the way mud adverts will use the word 'code' as a count-noun
"We use a SMAUG code" (which to an OpenSourcer is not a valid sentence,
"We use SMAUG code" being the only option), implying that there is little
communication between these groups. If there were greater overlap, there'd
be more opposition to the use of non-free mud servers, not only for the
ideological bigotry satisfaction reasons of the Free Software juggernaut,
but also because these people would be able to put forward strong practical
arguments against things like the Diku licence.
Elsewhere in this thread which I have been watching with interest, Matt
Chatterly identified three different types of reason someone might start
a not-so-new mud: coolness / powertrip, etc ; breakaway / disaffection ;
actual desire for originality. He said that the first two of these three
ought to be taken out and shot. A while ago I should certainly have agreed.
However, I have recently read a post [*] by Travis Casey on the MUD-Dev
mailing list in which it was argued that most of these StockMUDs about
there should be considered analogous to people running their own RPGs
on pencil and paper and someone wanting to be DM. Should the DM have to
invent his/her OWN regular polygon to get original dice? Of course not.
The analysis of the StockMUD phenomenon has fallen victim to a category
error. When I was compiling The Mud Tree, I counted as a single mud
variety all muds which derived from the same source (e.g., Diku, Circle,
SMAUG, MOO, Dirt, Mordor), but, not having the benefit of the insights
of Mr Casey or of Eric Raymond's Cathedral and Bazaar essay (which I
largely disagree with, but which would have proven useful), failed
to see that a lot of these people just wanted to run their own game,
rather than create their own unique virtual world (partially because of
the assumed orthodoxy (namely that all mud administrators should want to
be mud creators and innovators)).
The first and second groups (the harmless DM wannabes and the splitters)
ought to be considered separately from the innovators, even though they
are doing roughly the same thing in the same environment. The conditions
of this environment are that players don't communicate with a significant
proportion of the mudding community and there is a strongly defined notion
of acceptable variation. Players will tolerate changes in races, classes,
etc, but will strongly reject muds which have a different set of basic
commands or fundamentally different combat system. The "norming" effect
whereby GPLed code in free software projects ensures that forks and splits
don't occur too damagingly by all the useful changes being merged into
a central tree has its counterpart in the mudding world: popular innovations
within the permitted scope will propagate from mud to mud slowly through
the word of mouth transmission mechanism of a fragmented community. There's
certainly no central Diku clearing house for ideas, but there might as
well be.
So, why do all three groups choose the same old code? The first two groups
obviously want to attract players, and familiarity sells mud time. The
third group may (separately from the familiarity to the players issue)
also select a familiar codebase because it will be easier to modify to their
tastes, or because there is a particular set of desired features offered
by the codebase. I submit that the most desired feature is mud socket code:
it's the thing which constitutes a real barrier to entry for aspiring mud
designers. The easy way out is to use someone else's code ...
What this has led to is using not only stock socket code but a whole stock
mud, probably due to the difficulty of separating the two. For the want of
some socket code, the game mechanics and interface of an entire mud are
copied.
I think it would be quite beneficial (irrespective of the accuracy or
otherwise of my ever-haughty and possibly self-serving analysis) to have
a framework of LGPLed components (socket code, parser, game mechanics,
"database" (Ok, so the middle two are interdependent)) making up a mud
system, allowing coders to take only the bits they want, forcing them
only to conform to a particular set of interfaces between these components,
rather than forcing them to accept all the components just to get the
single one they want. By no coincidence whatsoever I have been writing
a component of just such a system ... :) and shall probably be releasing
it (the networking code) this weekend.
>perhaps we would have saved more of these creative/productive
>minds for the hobby/art and this would have been a good thing.
Perhaps as the maintainer of such a high profile site as gamecommandos
you are in a good position to promote things like this ...
Mk
[*] http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/1999Q4/msg00467.html
Ilya
>
> I wrote, and others responded.
>
> >Too many of our most creative and productive minds in the
> >mudding world are finally forced by economic concerns to
> >abandon it in search of activities which can provide at
> >least a minimal reward. If more code bases were out there
> >and were promoted which allowed for commercial use, then
>
> Now the Linux "counterexample" raised against you actually comes back
> to help; since the Linux kernel, OS and operating environment are all
> largely under free licences, it is possible, paradoxicly, for the
> system to be exploited commercially. I'm sure we couldn't do this
> with Minix.
><snip>
> I think it would be quite beneficial (irrespective of the accuracy or
> otherwise of my ever-haughty and possibly self-serving analysis) to have
> a framework of LGPLed components (socket code, parser, game mechanics,
> "database" (Ok, so the middle two are interdependent)) making up a mud
> system, allowing coders to take only the bits they want, forcing them
> only to conform to a particular set of interfaces between these components,
> rather than forcing them to accept all the components just to get the
> single one they want. By no coincidence whatsoever I have been writing
> a component of just such a system ... :) and shall probably be releasing
> it (the networking code) this weekend.
I love it! What other components are envisaged, exactly, and who
is to be working on them? Or shall we use the power of the site
and this usenet group to promote and recruit that as well?
>
> >perhaps we would have saved more of these creative/productive
> >minds for the hobby/art and this would have been a good thing.
>
> Perhaps as the maintainer of such a high profile site as gamecommandos
> you are in a good position to promote things like this ...
>
High profile? Wow, you're winning all sorts of points with Natalia
and me! Seriously, I guess with 30-40,000 unique visitors per month
we are at least visible, if not exactly high-profile, so it's not
TOO much of a stretch. But to answer directly --
We'd love to! What would you suggest? I've been working on an article,
elusively wandering around 95% complete after three rewrites in the
last week, which at least espouses moving towards the commercial-use-ok
code bases. I still hope to have it done very very soon. The words
are all there I think, but there is still something feeling incomplete.
We're open to suggestions.
> Mk
Martin Keegan
>Martin Keegan wrote:
>> single one they want. By no coincidence whatsoever I have been writing
>> a component of just such a system ... :) and shall probably be releasing
>> it (the networking code) this weekend.
>
>I love it! What other components are envisaged, exactly, and who
>is to be working on them? Or shall we use the power of the site
>and this usenet group to promote and recruit that as well?
Assuming the code actually works, there is a gang of people here at
Cambridge threatening to write all the other bits. The division we see
is roughly: socket code, database/memory management, parser, game mechanics.
I expect the game mechanics stuff not to be under the LGPL, unlike the
other bits. What's more important than the bits themselves is the
interface between them. In particular, I think the best approach would be
to see what can be taken OUT of a mud (socket stuff, database management)
and separating that, rather than imposing some a priori design structure
on the whole thing and then finding that it doesn't work (e.g., the way
someone might want to implement an internal MUD language might cut
across both parser and game mechanics...))
The point is that a coder should be constrained by existing code as
little as possible.
The only sane way to do that seems to be modularity that works. Having
a system not crippled by ancient licensing mistakes will prevent
Diku style fragmentation - there'd be no way to fork off separate codebases
permanently: either your mud would sit on its changes, or it'd distribute
them and they'd get folded into the main development tree.
>We'd love to! What would you suggest? I've been working on an article,
>elusively wandering around 95% complete after three rewrites in the
>last week, which at least espouses moving towards the commercial-use-ok
>code bases. I still hope to have it done very very soon. The words
>are all there I think, but there is still something feeling incomplete.
Can I see a copy of this article? Sounds interesting.
Mk
Ian Klimon, Esq.
makes its way to your site.
:)
ian klimon
------
i...@aephirsden.com
www.aephirsden.com
Ilya
>
> I'm interested in seeing it as well, can you at least let us know when it
> makes its way to your site.
>
It coins a new and exciting phrase soon to be heard echoing
in electronic halls everywhere: "Just say nay!"
Look for it direct at
http://www.gamecommandos.com/gamecommandos/Articles/Volume8/Article_Commies.asp
Or look for it at the main page, top of the "most recent articles"
section.