CODE_RELEASE: [server] MudOS 1.0
Edison
MudOS driver that has been running a production LPMud for over ten years.
This is quite a bit different from the more recent MudOS drivers. I
branched in 1995. This has the features of MudOS_0.9.20 without all the
bugs. It also has some nice enhancements. The really gory part was I had
to rollback a lot of the "fixes" to the compiler/interpreter in order to
fix them correctly (Think lvalue lifetime bug and other things that peed
on the LPC bytecodes.) I also fixed that nasty:
Warning: Error in the '%s' function in '%s'
The driver may function improperly if this problem is not fixed.
This means the safe_apply function doesn't actually crash the driver on
error anymore. So anyway, it runs a lot of "classic" distribution
mudlibs, essentially anything that would run under MudOS_0.9.20. Did I
mention it hasn't crashed in over 4 months of running a busy MUD?
Note that the documentation isn't really up to date. You have to read
ChangeLog to get a clue as to what is new and what is fixed. Also, LPC->C
is not functioning because I haven't maintained it.
If you chose to muck with this feel free to ask me for support.
(Constructive) feedback would be appreciated. I'll set aside a certain
number of hours per week to deal with support/clean up. I would
appreciate volunteers for clean up and documentation.
This is available for ftp from ftp://mudos.dyns.cx. The new
version is "MudOS_1.0_Source_Only.tar.gz." MudOS_0.9.20 is there as
well which you will need for documentation as my releases will be source
only initially until the doc's are updated. Also, there's a special
version of yacc you may use in place of your normal yacc. This is an
optimizing version of yacc derived from an old Amylaar yacc.
-Ed.
somerville32
gcc -Wall -g3 -O -pipe -c compiler.tab.c
compiler.y: In function `yyparse':
compiler.y:1399: warning: implicit declaration of function
`push_switches'
compiler.y:1483: warning: implicit declaration of function
`pop_switches'
compiler.y: At top level:
compiler.y:3715: error: conflicting types for 'push_switches'
compiler.y:1399: error: previous implicit declaration of
'push_switches' was here
compiler.y:3732: error: conflicting types for 'pop_switches'
compiler.y:1483: error: previous implicit declaration of 'pop_switches'
was here
make: *** [compiler.tab.o] Error 1
Edison
> gcc -Wall -g3 -O -pipe -c compiler.tab.c
> compiler.y: In function `yyparse':
> compiler.y:1399: warning: implicit declaration of function
> `push_switches'
> compiler.y:1483: warning: implicit declaration of function
> `pop_switches'
> compiler.y: At top level:
> compiler.y:3715: error: conflicting types for 'push_switches'
> compiler.y:1399: error: previous implicit declaration of
> 'push_switches' was here
> compiler.y:3732: error: conflicting types for 'pop_switches'
> compiler.y:1483: error: previous implicit declaration of 'pop_switches'
> was here
What is your platform? What is your version of gcc? For a faster reply,
Cc: me at garba...@sbcglobal.net.
-Ed.
Edison
Try adding these lines to lint.h:
void push_switches();
void pop_switches();
Let me know. I still need to know platform/gcc version.
-Ed.
Edison
somerville32
void push_switches();
void pop_switches();
to line 107 in compiler.y
I then got another error:
lex.c:81: error: conflicting types for 'error'
lex.c:81: note: a parameter list with an ellipsis can't match an empty
parameter name list declaration
lint.h:317: error: previous declaration of 'error' was here
lex.c:81: error: conflicting types for 'error'
lex.c:81: note: a parameter list with an ellipsis can't match an empty
parameter name list declaration
lint.h:317: error: previous declaration of 'error' was here
lex.c: In function `set_inc_list':
lex.c:2386: warning: implicit declaration of function `exit'
make: *** [lex.o] Error 1
somerville32
in lex.c
to:
void yyerror();
void error PROTVARGS(());
Marius
"Marius, since you have not been actively maintaining the MudOS project for
some time now, I would like to ask for your blessing to take over the
project."
That's all it would have taken to get my blessing, either implicitly as a
result of my silence (which is most likely what you would have gotten), or
explicitly by my saying so in response. MudOS is a project that has been
contributed to by a great many people over the years in a controlled (albeit
not very tightly) and guided manner. The torch has always been passed
willingly by the previous maintainer to the next. I would have passed the
torch long ago myself if I weren't so lazy about it. Others have asked, and
they've been met with silence for no other reason than I'm lazy and typically
ignore any email that contains the word MudOS. If they then went on to claim
maintainership of the project, I would have nothing to say about it. You,
however, I have never even heard _OF_ before now, never mind _FROM_. At the
very least, it's common courtesy to ask permission or for a blessing in
matters such as these.
What you are doing now is creating a whole new distribution of MudOS that is
presumably not at all compatible with the _MANY_ versions of MudOS that have
been released over the years since 0.9.20 by Beek, and subsequently myself.
You're using the name MudOS, a name to which you are most certainly _NOT_
entitled, and you're using a completely different versioning scheme. What
you have is a completely different derivative of MudOS. Legal issues and
other "minor" roadblocks aside, that's akin to me saying hey, I branched the
Linux 0.99pl14 kernel back in '93, continued making changes independent of
the official Linux kernel, and now I'm releasing it as Linux 1.0. Oh yeah,
it's not compatible with Linux 2.6 or whatever the current official version
is. Do you not see the problem with what you are doing?
MudOS is at v22.2b14, which was released on 12-Dec-2003. Since that time,
there has been a small amount of traffic on the mailing lists dedicated to
MudOS where people have submitted bugs and others have contributed back
solutions to the problems. While MudOS may be "dead" from the standpoint
that no official release has been made in a year and a half, the community is
not dead, and there are still official channels by which the community
communicates. In fact, I see your email address in the mailing list
subscriptions, so you are well aware of what's been going on with respect to
MudOS and that there is a home for it. You cannot claim ignorance.
Were it not clear who the maintainer of MudOS was, that it had a home, or
that it had any kind of active community, I would not have a problem with
what you are doing, and perhaps nobody else would either, because nobody
would care. In the end, I don't much care about MudOS anymore myself;
otherwise, I would still be actively maintaining it. What I do care about is
people laying claim to something that is not theirs. If you want to release
the code you've produced based on MudOS 0.9.20, nobody is going to stop you
or say a word about it so long as you do not continue to use the MudOS name
and abide by the terms of the licensing under which the code you've used as a
base has been contributed, which most certainly includes attribution.
Now, I know who you are (at least that you exist anyway) and what you're
doing. I don't like it, but ultimately there isn't anything I can or would
be bothered to do about it other than give you this public shaming. Though
you do not need it, you have my blessing to release what you are fraudulently
releasing as MudOS 1.0 under any other name to which you have a right. You
do not now--nor will you ever--have my blessing or permission to release
_anything_ under the MudOS moniker. Am I clear?
This response will be posted by me to the official MudOS home at
http://www.mudos.org/ as well as the MudOS general discussion mailing list.
Since you're subscribed to that list, you will see that it is so.
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 19:55:48 -0400, Edison wrote
(in article <pan.2005.03.15....@sbcglobal.net>):
Alan Schwartz
>Um, Hello???
[snip]
>
>Were it not clear who the maintainer of MudOS was, that it had a home, or
>that it had any kind of active community, I would not have a problem with
>what you are doing, and perhaps nobody else would either, because nobody
>would care. In the end, I don't much care about MudOS anymore myself;
>otherwise, I would still be actively maintaining it. What I do care about is
>people laying claim to something that is not theirs. If you want to release
>the code you've produced based on MudOS 0.9.20, nobody is going to stop you
>or say a word about it so long as you do not continue to use the MudOS name
>and abide by the terms of the licensing under which the code you've used as a
>base has been contributed, which most certainly includes attribution.
Hey, Marius. Note that the copyright on this "MudOS 1.0" reads:
| This game, LPmud, is copyright by Lars Pensj|, 1990, 1991.
|
| Source code herein refers to the source code, and any executables
| created from the same source code.
|
| All rights reserved. Permission is granted to extend and modify the
| source code provided subject to the restriction that the source code may
| not be used in any way whatsoever for monetary gain.
|
| ******
|
| The name MudOS is copyright 1991-1992 by Erik Kay, Adam Beeman, Stephan
| Iannce
| and John Garnett. LPmud copyright restrictions still apply.
|
| In addition, the entire package is copyright 2005 by Robert W. Fuller.
Who's Robert W. Fuller? If it's not someone you know, they're
attempting to lay claim to copyright of the entire package, when
they should only have copyright of their own patches. That would
be reprehensible - please let us know if that's the case.
- Alan
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Javelin@M*U*S*H (mush.pennmush.org 4201) | Alan Schwartz
| dune...@pennmush.org
Paul@DuneMUSH, and Javelin elsewhere | PennMUSH Server Maintainer
=-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
PennMUSH God's Guide: http://www.pennmush.org/~alansz/guide.html
PennMUSH Source: http://download.pennmush.org/Source
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Marius
(in article <d7lgf0$isv$1...@newsx.cc.uic.edu>):
> Hey, Marius. Note that the copyright on this "MudOS 1.0" reads:
>
>> This game, LPmud, is copyright by Lars Pensj|, 1990, 1991.
>>
>> Source code herein refers to the source code, and any executables
>> created from the same source code.
>>
>> All rights reserved. Permission is granted to extend and modify the
>> source code provided subject to the restriction that the source code may
>> not be used in any way whatsoever for monetary gain.
>>
>> ******
>>
>> The name MudOS is copyright 1991-1992 by Erik Kay, Adam Beeman, Stephan
>> Iannce
>> and John Garnett. LPmud copyright restrictions still apply.
>>
>> In addition, the entire package is copyright 2005 by Robert W. Fuller.
>
> Who's Robert W. Fuller? If it's not someone you know, they're
> attempting to lay claim to copyright of the entire package, when
> they should only have copyright of their own patches. That would
> be reprehensible - please let us know if that's the case.
I have not downloaded this rogue MudOS derivative , nor do I intend to.
However, according to Google, Robert W. Fuller and "Edison"
<garba...@sbcglobal.net> are one in the same.
The copyright in MudOS v22.2b14 reads the same except for the last line:
In addition, the entire package is copyright 1995 by Tim Hollebeek.
Alan Schwartz
Then this is either ignorance of copyright law or blatant
misappropriation, and in violation of copyright law, as well as the
license of the software. As I'm sure you know, if he's made a derivative
of MudOS v22.2b14, although he may hold a copyright on his own patches
standing alone, the derivative work's copyright should continue to vest
in the copyright holder of the original work.
Edison
<omitted>
> Then this is either ignorance of copyright law or blatant
> misappropriation, and in violation of copyright law, as well as the
> license of the software. As I'm sure you know, if he's made a derivative
> of MudOS v22.2b14, although he may hold a copyright on his own patches
> standing alone, the derivative work's copyright should continue to vest
> in the copyright holder of the original work.
This is a very serious allegation. Fortunately, there is no truth to it.
One of your premises is incorrect. This is a derivative of MudOS_0.9.20
which does NOT contain "In addition, the entire package is copyright 1995
by TimHollebeek."
-Ed.
Edison
> Um, Hello???
>
> "Marius, since you have not been actively maintaining the MudOS project
> for some time now, I would like to ask for your blessing to take over
> the project."
>
> That's all it would have taken to get my blessing, either implicitly as
> a result of my silence (which is most likely what you would have
> gotten), or explicitly by my saying so in response. MudOS is a project
> that has been
My apologies. I should have contacted you in advance to avoid this
ugliness. Of course, last time I sent you an e-mail, I did not receive a
reply, so I was disinclined to send another.
You misunderstand my intentions. I have no intention of taking over the
MudOS project. I branched the driver years ago for a production MUD
because the newer drivers were unstable. I merely wish to share with the
community the fruits of that labor. For the first time, this provides
people with a stable gamedriver for running classical mudlib's written for
MudOS.
<omitted>
> What you are doing now is creating a whole new distribution of MudOS
> that is presumably not at all compatible with the _MANY_ versions of
> MudOS that have been released over the years since 0.9.20 by Beek, and
> subsequently myself. You're using the name MudOS, a name to which you
> are most certainly _NOT_ entitled, and you're using a completely
> different versioning scheme. What you have is a completely different
> derivative of MudOS. Legal issues and other "minor" roadblocks aside,
> that's akin to me saying hey, I branched the Linux 0.99pl14 kernel back
> in '93, continued making changes independent of the official Linux
> kernel, and now I'm releasing it as Linux 1.0. Oh yeah, it's not
> compatible with Linux 2.6 or whatever the current official version is.
> Do you not see the problem with what you are doing?
Yes. Now for a short history lesson. You should be familiar with this as
it is distributed in the MudOS gamedriver! (For the curious, please see
the file History.MudOS in the MudOS gamedriver.) The file is a response
to the huge outcry that occurred when MudOS was renamed from LPmud to
MudOS. People complained that it was a discredit to Lars who had written
LPmud to change the name from LPmud to MudOS. Not wanting to repeat that
mistake, I kept the MudOS name. Clearly, this is a situation where you are
damned if you do and damned if you don't. Hence, I decided to be double
damned and renamed it to MUM.
> MudOS is at v22.2b14, which was released on 12-Dec-2003. Since that
> time, there has been a small amount of traffic on the mailing lists
> dedicated to MudOS where people have submitted bugs and others have
> contributed back solutions to the problems. While MudOS may be "dead"
> from the standpoint that no official release has been made in a year and
> a half, the community is not dead, and there are still official channels
> by which the community communicates. In fact, I see your email address
> in the mailing list subscriptions, so you are well aware of what's been
> going on with respect to MudOS and that there is a home for it. You
> cannot claim ignorance.
Yes. I am on the mailing list. Today, I received my first e-mail from
the list ever. What is it I should be aware of from a mailing list from
which I have never received an e-mail before today? Obviously, I can
claim ignorance.
> Were it not clear who the maintainer of MudOS was, that it had a home,
> or that it had any kind of active community, I would not have a problem
> with what you are doing, and perhaps nobody else would either, because
> nobody would care. In the end, I don't much care about MudOS anymore
> myself; otherwise, I would still be actively maintaining it. What I do
This was exactly my point. It IS dead. You aren't maintaining it, yet
you claim it has a maintainer. Wow. I'm amazed at what one person can
say in the first and last sentences of the same paragraph.
> care about is people laying claim to something that is not theirs. If
> you want to release the code you've produced based on MudOS 0.9.20,
> nobody is going to stop you or say a word about it so long as you do not
> continue to use the MudOS name and abide by the terms of the licensing
> under which the code you've used as a base has been contributed, which
> most certainly includes attribution.
To address your complaint, I've renamed the gamedriver to MUM. Attribution
remains in the gamedriver source where it has always resided. Of course I
am complying with the licensing terms.
By the way, what claim do you have on the MudOS name? As far as I know,
the Copyright file in your gamedriver states: "The name MudOS is
copyright 1991-1992 by Erik Kay, Adam Beeman, Stephan Iannce, and John
Garnett." I don't see your name there. While I have generously addressed
your complaint, none of the MudOS name copyright holders have complained.
Now, back to what I prefer to do. Write code. Have a nice day!
-Ed.
Edison
> Who's Robert W. Fuller? If it's not someone you know, they're
> attempting to lay claim to copyright of the entire package, when
> they should only have copyright of their own patches. That would
> be reprehensible - please let us know if that's the case.
>
> - Alan
Hmm. Good point Alan. I was following Beek's lead here. Unfortunately,
his was a reprehensible example. I wonder if he was trying to lay claim
to the entire package?
No I am not trying to lay claim to anybody else's code, only my own.
-Ed.
Edison
I should be MORE explicit about this. MUM (the gamedriver formerly known
as MudOS 1.0) is derived from MudOS_0.9.20. It is NOT derived from
v22.2b14. In fact, I consider this to be a benefit.
-Ed.
Alan Schwartz
Then you still can not assert copyright over it - copyright vests
with the holders of the MudOS_0.9.20 copyright.
You confirm my key premise - that this is a derivative work.
You can not assert copyright over a complete package when it is
a derivative work. Perhaps you were unaware of this?
As you are now aware of how copyright works, failure to modify your
copyright file at this point would no longer be through ignorance,
but would be willful. I'm sure that's not your intention and
you'll find a way to assert your rights only in your patches,
not the entire work.
Alan Schwartz
Great, here's a best practice for doing that.
Start from a clean MudOS_0.9.20, and use that Copyright notice.
Using diff, produce a set of patches between that and your work.
Those patches describe the new code that you've written, to which
you have rights.
Distribute the patches inside the work in a subdirectory somewhere
(or put them on an ftp site).
Add to the copyright notice something like "This work includes
the 'Edison patches, version x' which are copyright Robert W.
Fuller (date). You are granted license to modify and redistribute
these changes under the terms of the license for the original work"
(and obviously, you can't change the license on the original).
That would be a highly appropriate approach; when you've done
that, please post here or email me to let me know, as your
posting to rec.games.mud.announce will be held until that
time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alan Schwartz ("Javelin"), Moderator for rec.games.mud.announce
rgm-an...@pennmush.org (rec.games.mud.announce submissions)
rgm-announ...@pennmush.org (private mail to the moderator)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alan Schwartz
>
>To address your complaint, I've renamed the gamedriver to MUM. Attribution
>remains in the gamedriver source where it has always resided. Of course I
>am complying with the licensing terms.
This is good.
>By the way, what claim do you have on the MudOS name? As far as I know,
>the Copyright file in your gamedriver states: "The name MudOS is
>copyright 1991-1992 by Erik Kay, Adam Beeman, Stephan Iannce, and John
>Garnett." I don't see your name there. While I have generously addressed
>your complaint, none of the MudOS name copyright holders have complained.
You can't copyright a name. You can trademark one, but that's different.
Even so, it's good that you've renamed the driver if it would have
caused confusion or bad feelings among the community you seek
to serve and from whose original work you are benefitting.
vi...@securesoftware.com
Edison wrote:
>
> My apologies. I should have contacted you in advance to avoid this
> ugliness. Of course, last time I sent you an e-mail, I did not receive a
> reply, so I was disinclined to send another.
There was also the MudOS mailing list, which you knew about.
> Yes. Now for a short history lesson. You should be familiar with this as
> it is distributed in the MudOS gamedriver! (For the curious, please see
> the file History.MudOS in the MudOS gamedriver.) The file is a response
> to the huge outcry that occurred when MudOS was renamed from LPmud to
> MudOS. People complained that it was a discredit to Lars who had written
> LPmud to change the name from LPmud to MudOS. Not wanting to repeat that
> mistake, I kept the MudOS name. Clearly, this is a situation where you are
> damned if you do and damned if you don't. Hence, I decided to be double
> damned and renamed it to MUM.
This is obtuse. LPC is a programming language, and the complaint was
more or less in ignoring that fact in its marketing. Let's look at
other bits of history, though:
1) Amylaar took over LPMud development, and this eventually became
known as simply "The Amylaar driver". It's still isn't referred to
with LPC in the name, but it is clearly labeled as an implementation of
LPC.
2) DGD: Not a derived work, but clearly implements the same language.
Embrases being an LPMud, but doesn't have it in the name.
3) LDMud: A branch of Amylaar's driver, basically maintaining it. It
doesn't reuse the name "Amylaar". This is the example you should have
looked to and followed.
4) LPC4: Profezzorn built this clear derivitive, and then changed the
name of the whole damn programming language to "Pike", even though it
is still pretty much LPC. Nobody complained.
None of these people seemed to consider picking up the existing name of
a code base without the concent of the maintainers. and when they did
have concent, they often changed the name anyway!
> Yes. I am on the mailing list. Today, I received my first e-mail from
> the list ever. What is it I should be aware of from a mailing list from
> which I have never received an e-mail before today? Obviously, I can
> claim ignorance.
That it's there in the first place. You can claim ignorance, but you
look like a fool. You clearly knew how to get ahold of people.
Marius' email address certainly works.
> This was exactly my point. It IS dead. You aren't maintaining it, yet
> you claim it has a maintainer. Wow. I'm amazed at what one person can
> say in the first and last sentences of the same paragraph.
There's no logical falacy there. The MudOS community is *not* dead.
Pelle Johansson in particular has sent a lot of patches to the mailing
list reasonably recently. And, Marius is still the maintainer, even if
he chooses not to be active. He's got the right to be the active
maintainer if he wants to be, or to pass the torch.
If we're going to get amazed at people's reactions to things, I'm
amazed your reaction to all of this wasn't essentially, "I'm sorry, I
fucked up. I'll rename it to MUM and STFU." Why are you nitpicking
over this particular issue? It feels like you're trying to wiggle
through an excuse where there aren't any good excuses.
> By the way, what claim do you have on the MudOS name? As far as I know,
> the Copyright file in your gamedriver states: "The name MudOS is
> copyright 1991-1992 by Erik Kay, Adam Beeman, Stephan Iannce, and John
> Garnett." I don't see your name there. While I have generously addressed
> your complaint, none of the MudOS name copyright holders have complained.
You clearly don't understand intellectual property law, and neither did
whoever wrote that statement. MudOS may be an implicit trademark that
is defendable, but copyright law does not protect a single name. The
original text is totally devoid of meaning, beyond showing their
ill-guided intent to claim an unregistered trademark on the name.
Marius' right to MudOS is quite clear and well established. Your right
is neither here nor there in my book. It's your *moral* right that I
would quibble with. You currently didn't have it, but just did
whatever you wanted without any concern for anyone else.
And you trying to pick nits in every little point Marius has made is
about the most assholish thing I've seen this year.
Nonetheless, you've changed the name, so this is already in the past as
far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure Marius as well. Good luck with
"MUM"!
Edison
> Edison <garba...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>>On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 23:30:40 +0000, Alan Schwartz wrote:
>>> Who's Robert W. Fuller? If it's not someone you know, they're
>>> attempting to lay claim to copyright of the entire package, when
>>> they should only have copyright of their own patches. That would
>>> be reprehensible - please let us know if that's the case.
>>>
>>> - Alan
>>
>>Hmm. Good point Alan. I was following Beek's lead here. Unfortunately,
>>his was a reprehensible example. I wonder if he was trying to lay claim
>>to the entire package?
>>
>>No I am not trying to lay claim to anybody else's code, only my own.
>
> Great, here's a best practice for doing that.
>
> Start from a clean MudOS_0.9.20, and use that Copyright notice.
Already done. Disturbing implication that there is something unclean
about my source. I did use that Copyright notice. I simply added a line,
just as Beek did in his branch. Clearly, that was a mistake.
> Using diff, produce a set of patches between that and your work.
> Those patches describe the new code that you've written, to which
> you have rights.
>
> Distribute the patches inside the work in a subdirectory somewhere
> (or put them on an ftp site).
I will make patches for the ftp site. (I would like to point out that
anybody could make the patches since MudOS_0.9.20 is available on my
ftp site as well.) However, I am not going to inconvenience my users by
requiring them to patch the source code themselves. Thus, I will also
continue to make a patched distribution available.
> Add to the copyright notice something like "This work includes
> the 'Edison patches, version x' which are copyright Robert W.
> Fuller (date). You are granted license to modify and redistribute
> these changes under the terms of the license for the original work"
Good advice. I will do that. Clearly, following Beek's example
was a poor idea and this is a much better one.
> (and obviously, you can't change the license on the original).
Of course not. Nor did I try :-) In fact, I was leveraging that license
since it gave me permission to extend and modify the code.
> That would be a highly appropriate approach; when you've done
> that, please post here or email me to let me know, as your
> posting to rec.games.mud.announce will be held until that
> time.
I will e-mail you shortly. Thank you.
-Ed.
Edison
Are you going to hold Beek and the "official MudOS distribution" to the
same standards? Remember, it contains, "In addition, the entire package
Edison
The Copyright file now includes the following:
This release includes patches by Robert W. Fuller. This set of patches is
copyright 2005 by Robert W. Fuller. All rights reserved. LPmud copyright
restrictions still apply.
As a reference, the patches may be downloaded from
ftp://mum.dyns.cx/patches/robertwfuller-mudos-patches.gz. Note that they
are already applied to this distribution.
John Viega
an ignorance issue, and I don't think anyone begrudges either you or
Tim the fact that you didn't know enough to properly assert your claims
on the work.
An alternative approach which doesn't require you to distribute patches
(which can get sticky if you take other people's contributions and let
them keep their own copyrights) is to simply say "this dist contains
code that is copyright Robert W Fuller.", etc.
Alan Schwartz
>> Then you still can not assert copyright over it - copyright vests
>> with the holders of the MudOS_0.9.20 copyright.
>>
>> You confirm my key premise - that this is a derivative work.
>> You can not assert copyright over a complete package when it is
>> a derivative work. Perhaps you were unaware of this?
>>
>> As you are now aware of how copyright works, failure to modify your
>> copyright file at this point would no longer be through ignorance,
>> but would be willful. I'm sure that's not your intention and
>> you'll find a way to assert your rights only in your patches,
>> not the entire work.
>
>Are you going to hold Beek and the "official MudOS distribution" to the
>same standards? Remember, it contains, "In addition, the entire package
>is copyright 1995 by TimHollebeek."
Absolutely I'd hold someone else to the same standards, but they
didn't come to my attention and they're not seeking to actively
redistribute at the moment. (I have exactly no personal stake
in LPmud/MudOS -- only in the rights of server maintainers
in general and in the "professional standards of the field"
of mud server development).
Alan Schwartz
As I wrote to you in email, this does indeed meet my suggestions
of best practice and makes the release announcement suitable for
r.g.m.announce.
(But, as I also wrote to you, it might be better to explicitly
place your patches under the same license as lpmud or under
a compatible open source license, unless you intend to restrict
modification/redistribution, which would be both ironic and sad.)
Edison
> of best practice and makes the release announcement suitable for
> r.g.m.announce.
>
> (But, as I also wrote to you, it might be better to explicitly
> place your patches under the same license as lpmud or under
> a compatible open source license, unless you intend to restrict
> modification/redistribution, which would be both ironic and sad.)
My intention was to distribute my patches under LPmud license.
Unfortunately (or fortunately?) I am not a lawyer. I will update the
Copyright file once more when I receive more specific legal advice about
how I should word things to achieve this.
Lars Duening
> 3) LDMud: A branch of Amylaar's driver, basically maintaining it. It
> doesn't reuse the name "Amylaar".
Sheer ego!
:-)
--
Lars Duening; lars at bearnip dot com
Lars Duening
> Then you still can not assert copyright over it - copyright vests
> with the holders of the MudOS_0.9.20 copyright.
>
> You confirm my key premise - that this is a derivative work.
> You can not assert copyright over a complete package when it is
> a derivative work. Perhaps you were unaware of this?
There are times when I wish that I were (or could afford) a copyright
lawyer, as there are interesting things like copyrights on the
compilation of copyrighted works, or derivates which are derivative
enough to justify being copyrighted as a whole by the derivator.