Angband OpenSource Initiative
Andrew Sidwell
After browsing thangorodrim.net, I noticed that the open source page [1]
has not been updated since September 2002. I'm pretty sure new people
have come onto the scene since then, so I thought it might be a good
time to get active contributor's permission to release their code under
the GPL.
I will keep track of people who put their names down until someone else
expresses an interest to take over, or if thangorodrim ever gets updated
again. :)
I note that changes in NPPAngband seem to be dual-licenced, so I will
include Jeff Greene and Diego Gonzalez. I also recently contacted David
Vestal (who wrote the autoinscribe code in NPP, and thus also the
Vanilla patch by Pete Mack), who gave his permission.
So, if your name isn't on the page [1], but you would like to eventually
see Angband under a "free" licence and you write code for a variant or
patches, please reply to this post with some declaration of intent.
Thanks,
Andrew Sidwell
Eddie Grove
I am sure some of my code has made it into [S]. I am happy to see any
Angband work I do or have done released under the GPL.
Eddie Grove
camlost
I am happy and eager to have any changes I've made to Angband code to be
released as GPL.
Joshua
Christer Nyfalt
I give permission for GPL.
Christer Nyfalt
konijn_
> Evening.
>
> So, if your name isn't on the page [1], but you would like to eventually
> see Angband under a "free" licence and you write code for a variant or
> patches, please reply to this post with some declaration of intent.
I release my code under GPL, LGPL and where valid public domain.
And thanks for taking over the torch on that one!!
T.
Andrew Doull
> Evening.
>
> After browsing thangorodrim.net, I noticed that the open source page [1]
> has not been updated since September 2002. I'm pretty sure new people
> have come onto the scene since then, so I thought it might be a good
> time to get active contributor's permission to release their code under
> the GPL.
>
> I will keep track of people who put their names down until someone else
> expresses an interest to take over, or if thangorodrim ever gets updated
> again. :)
>
> I note that changes in NPPAngband seem to be dual-licenced, so I will
> include Jeff Greene and Diego Gonzalez. I also recently contacted David
> Vestal (who wrote the autoinscribe code in NPP, and thus also the
> Vanilla patch by Pete Mack), who gave his permission.
>
My only contribution to Angband was suggesting renaming the early Ethereal
hounds to Clear hounds, and I am happy to GPL this.
Unangband is dual licensed as well (Angband/Moria and GPL).
Provocative question: once we successfully dual license Angband, who's going to
start charging for a downloadable cellphone version?
I also believe that the graphics tiles currently used are encumbered by a
slightly different license.
Andrew
--
Unangband L:C E+ T- R- P+ D-- G+(+) F:Sangband RL-- RLA-- W:F Q++
AI+(++) GFX++ SFX++ RN+++(+) PO++ Hp+++ Re--(+) S++ C- O* KG--
Nick McConnell
> Evening.
Morning :)
> So, if your name isn't on the page [1], but you would like to eventually
> see Angband under a "free" licence and you write code for a variant or
> patches, please reply to this post with some declaration of intent.
I'm in, for what that's worth. Good luck.
Nick.
--
Nick McConnell
FA + "Ooog" DN L:42 DL:57 A+ R++ Sp w:Rog
FA*/A/NPP/O/Po/St/Un W/L H- D c-- f- PV+ s- d++ P++ M+
C-- S- I* So+ B+ ac GHB SQ? RQ+ V-/V+@ F:NPP notes, etc.
Timo Pietilä
> So, if your name isn't on the page [1], but you would like to eventually
> see Angband under a "free" licence and you write code for a variant or
> patches, please reply to this post with some declaration of intent.
If I ever get anything done with my variant or any of my ideas or
changes get into vanilla, I'm supporting this.
Timo Pietilä
Nick McConnell
> Provocative question: once we successfully dual license Angband, who's going to
> start charging for a downloadable cellphone version?
Now THAT I'd like to see.
Andrew Sidwell
> Provocative question: once we successfully dual license Angband, who's going to
> start charging for a downloadable cellphone version?
I don't think it's so much of a provocative question as a theoretical
one, sadly. :) I believe that cellphones use Java for downloads pretty
much exclusively; it'd be a security risk if they let people download C
games onto it.
It'd be a good thing regardless, because they'd have to contribute any
changes back to the community anyway.
> I also believe that the graphics tiles currently used are encumbered by a
> slightly different license.
The sound files are too. However, the code would still be Free, which
is the main thing -- there you overcome the obstacle of sharing code
with other projects, and being included in Linux.
Thanks to everyone who's signed up so far, BTW.
Andrew Sidwell
Neil Stevens
> Provocative question: once we successfully dual license Angband, who's going to
> start charging for a downloadable cellphone version?
More like a misinformed one. Such a download, without source, would be
as much a violation of the GNU GPL as it would be of the Moria license.
So if it's not happening now, then it's not going to happen later.
--
Neil Stevens - ne...@hakubi.us
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not
looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
konijn_
> Andrew Doull wrote:
> > Provocative question: once we successfully dual license Angband, who's going to
> > start charging for a downloadable cellphone version?
>
> More like a misinformed one. Such a download, without source, would be
> as much a violation of the GNU GPL as it would be of the Moria license.
As long as the source is easily available you're good, which IMHO ( &
IANAL ) doesnt mean it has to be available on the same medium.
Neil Stevens
> As long as the source is easily available you're good, which IMHO ( &
> IANAL ) doesnt mean it has to be available on the same medium.
Read the license. If you charge for the download, either the sources
must be included, or a free offer of the sources must be made. It's not
sufficient merely to say that the sources are on the Internet somewhere.
Antony Sidwell
> Evening.
Wotcha.
> So, if your name isn't on the page [1], but you would like to eventually
> see Angband under a "free" licence and you write code for a variant or
> patches, please reply to this post with some declaration of intent.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Sidwell
>
> [1] http://www.thangorodrim.net/development/opensource.html
I think you probably know my position on the little bits of code I've
contributed to V, but for formality's sake, they're licensed under the
GPL as well as the Angband licence.
--
Antony Sidwell
Kevin Williams
Neil Stevens <ne...@hakubi.us> wrote:
> konijn_ wrote:
>> As long as the source is easily available you're good, which IMHO ( &
>> IANAL ) doesnt mean it has to be available on the same medium.
>
> Read the license. If you charge for the download, either the sources
> must be included, or a free offer of the sources must be made. It's not
> sufficient merely to say that the sources are on the Internet somewhere.
So the seller hosts a copy of the source on their server and makes it
easy enough to find.
--
Kevin
Neil Stevens
Bingo, and then that business model is undercut. I don't see it happening.
Jeff Greene
"Andrew Sidwell" <ne...@entai.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%Ohfh.914$v4....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
> Evening.
>
>
> I note that changes in NPPAngband seem to be dual-licenced, so I will
> include Jeff Greene and Diego Gonzalez. I also recently contacted David
> Vestal (who wrote the autoinscribe code in NPP, and thus also the
> Vanilla patch by Pete Mack), who gave his permission.
Correct on NPP. Our changes and orignial NPP coding is under to the
OpenSource Initiative.
>
> So, if your name isn't on the page [1], but you would like to eventually
> see Angband under a "free" licence and you write code for a variant or
> patches, please reply to this post with some declaration of intent.
Plenty of our code has found its way back into Vanilla, so I concur with our
changes to the Vanilla code coming under the GPL as well. I don't think I
can act as an agent and legally concur on behalf of Diego for his code that
has gone into Vanilla, but I will ask him to concur here as well too.
-Jeff
The Wanderer
> Kevin Williams wrote:
>
>> In an Age long past, in an Age yet to come, Neil Stevens
>> <ne...@hakubi.us> wrote:
>>> Read the license. If you charge for the download, either the
>>> sources must be included, or a free offer of the sources must be
>>> made. It's not sufficient merely to say that the sources are on
>>> the Internet somewhere.
>>
>> So the seller hosts a copy of the source on their server and makes
>> it easy enough to find.
>
> Bingo, and then that business model is undercut. I don't see it
> happening.
How many people would find it more cost-effective (in terms both of
effort and the view that "time is money") to download the precompiled
version directly to a cell phone than to download the source (to
something else, since I doubt very many people run C compilers on their
cell phones), compile it into a form usable on the cell phone in
question, and get it transferred onto that cell phone?
I don't know the answer, but I'm not positive it's low enough to
guarantee the death of the business model out of the gate.
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
Neil Stevens
> How many people would find it more cost-effective (in terms both of
> effort and the view that "time is money") to download the precompiled
> version directly to a cell phone than to download the source (to
> something else, since I doubt very many people run C compilers on their
> cell phones), compile it into a form usable on the cell phone in
> question, and get it transferred onto that cell phone?
>
> I don't know the answer, but I'm not positive it's low enough to
> guarantee the death of the business model out of the gate.
Aha, but what happens when someone downloads the source, compiles it,
then puts it up for a free download?
Diego Gonzalez
I give my permission to include any code I wrote for *bands under the GPL
license.
Diego González
konijn_
> The Wanderer wrote:
> > How many people would find it more cost-effective (in terms both of
> > effort and the view that "time is money") to download the precompiled
> > version directly to a cell phone than to download the source (to
> > something else, since I doubt very many people run C compilers on their
> > cell phones), compile it into a form usable on the cell phone in
> > question, and get it transferred onto that cell phone?
> >
> > I don't know the answer, but I'm not positive it's low enough to
> > guarantee the death of the business model out of the gate.
>
> Aha, but what happens when someone downloads the source, compiles it,
> then puts it up for a free download?
I would have preferred, 'Oh, konijn is right' ;)
The original topic was 'it is a violation of GPL'.
The business model is also not undercut by the way. For example: there is no
easy way for me to download a game on my phone except if I buy from Cingular,
so even if I downloaded the source I couldnt get an executable on my phone and
I like to think I am slightly more advanced than Joe. My only option is to
spend. And to answer your question, I can only download games now from
Cingular, so I cant even use free downloads.
So as a company you just cut a deal with the phone providers, of course you
would need to have a service oriented company because there is nothing that
stops Cingular after the first payment to take the source and go at it
themselves (yeah right), meaning you need to keep innovating which would be
great news for everybody involved.
T.
<SNIP>
--
---
- Go to Hell !
- http://hellband.googlepages.com/index.html
---
Kevin Williams
> then puts it up for a free download?
Who says there's a free-as-in-beer cross-compiler for your cell
phone's CPU and operating system?
ISAGN: Java port of T-Engine and a few *bands ported to T.
Besides, the seller would probably have bunchteen other games on their
site and might even provide technical support if something breaks[0].
Convenience and support matter to some people[1]. See how Red Hat still
makes money even though CentOS is a free clone of Red Hat Enterprise.
[0] Counterexample might be Palm's site. Who really pays $20 for a Palm
applet?
[1] The only *band I've compiled is NPP because there wasn't a Linux
binary. I even told gcc -O3 -march=athlon-xp so I could get a
couple more frames per second. ;-)
--
Kevin
Sherm Pendley
> Neil Stevens wrote:
>
>> Kevin Williams wrote:
>>
>>> In an Age long past, in an Age yet to come, Neil Stevens
>>> <ne...@hakubi.us> wrote:
>
>>>> Read the license. If you charge for the download, either the
>>>> sources must be included, or a free offer of the sources must be
>>>> made. It's not sufficient merely to say that the sources are on
>>>> the Internet somewhere.
>>>
>>> So the seller hosts a copy of the source on their server and makes
>>> it easy enough to find.
>>
>> Bingo, and then that business model is undercut. I don't see it
>> happening.
>
> How many people would find it more cost-effective (in terms both of
> effort and the view that "time is money") to download the precompiled
> version directly to a cell phone than to download the source (to
> something else, since I doubt very many people run C compilers on their
> cell phones), compile it into a form usable on the cell phone in
> question, and get it transferred onto that cell phone?
Only one person would need to do that. He could then quite legally post
copies of his binary for everyone else to download for free. And you can
bet on someone doing it - somewhere, someone will (inevitably, it seems)
be angry enough at the idea of charging for GPL software to do just that.
> I don't know the answer, but I'm not positive it's low enough to
> guarantee the death of the business model out of the gate.
The classic business model for GPL software isn't unit sales, it's service
and support. Companies like IBM and RedHat are doing quite well with that
model, but it's difficult to imagine how it could be applied to games.
sherm--
--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Twisted
gcc -O3 -march=athlon-xp post.c
Error: undefined external symbol ISAGN
Error: undefined external symbol bunchteen
2 errors
%>
Andrew Doull
> Kevin Williams wrote:
> > In an Age long past, in an Age yet to come,
> > Neil Stevens wrote:
> >> konijn_ wrote:
> >>> As long as the source is easily available you're good, which IMHO ( &
> >>> IANAL ) doesnt mean it has to be available on the same medium.
> >> Read the license. If you charge for the download, either the sources
> >> must be included, or a free offer of the sources must be made. It's not
> >> sufficient merely to say that the sources are on the Internet somewhere.
> >
> > So the seller hosts a copy of the source on their server and makes it
> > easy enough to find.
>
> Bingo, and then that business model is undercut. I don't see it happening.
Howabout, for arguments sake, the following less than pleasant scenario. I want
to put this out there as a purely hypothetical argument, but I'm writing it
with a deliberately inflammatory scenario to get you thinking. Please take this
with a large grain of salt, and don't take it personally. I also hope you don't
hate me afterwards for saying it. I am in no way considering doing it.
The day after you release ToME 3 final, I release the Generic Roguelike
Universal Engine version 1. Its a fork of ToME 3 final, but I've changed the
makefile and references in the code from ToME to GRUE. I advertise it as having
advantages to ToME because GRUE is easier to type with capslock on. I release it
under the GPL, with the correct attribution, and make the source code
available.
I provide a website with massive amounts of documentation for the GRUE that I
have authored. I make it clear that this documentation cannot be distributed
with other roguelike engines, only the GRUE. I have Google advertising that I
profit from on the site. I also release a book on how to program the GRUE. I
buy google keywords on searches on words like Pernangband, roguelike and ToME
that point to the GRUE website. The website forums become popular, and drive
and developers jump ship from ToME to GRUE. I sell t-shirts.
I also release a module for the GRUE, that implements intellectual content that
I've licensed from a 3rd party. Say, for arguments sake, DragonBall Z. I sell
this module for $20 on Xbox Live and the PS3 and Wii online services. I
strictly enforce my licensing by suing anyone using DragonBall Z without such
authorisation. I make the modifications to the GRUE engine required to get it
working in these environments available to download. So ToME benefits.
Unfortunately, ToME doesn't have contractual agreements with Microsoft, Sony or
Nintendo to distribute anything over their networks, so the GPL changes I made
are worthless.
I make enough money to continue releasing modules that make me more money. Note
that the modules are all copyrighted by me, and not released under the GPL. So
the content I am generating is not useable by anyone running ToME.
How does the GPL provide the appropriate mechanisms to stop this business model?
Or is it one that you are happy with?
Regards,
Christophe Cavalaria
Sorry, no can't do that with a GPL program. Because giving the source isn't
the only requirement for the GPL. The user must also have all the tools
required to change, recompile and use the resulting binary himself. With
your scheme, the user will not be able to do that because binaries on the
consoles are signed.
You are in breach of the GPL, you fail.
Neil Stevens
> How does the GPL provide the appropriate mechanisms to stop this business model?
> Or is it one that you are happy with?
It doesn't. And I don't see that it needs to. The work put in has been
shared, by the terms of the license, so that others can build on it.
That's all the license seeks to do.
People looking for socialism need to look beyond copyright law to get there.
Neil Stevens
> Sorry, no can't do that with a GPL program. Because giving the source isn't
> the only requirement for the GPL. The user must also have all the tools
> required to change, recompile and use the resulting binary himself. With
> your scheme, the user will not be able to do that because binaries on the
> consoles are signed.
Cite?
Andrew Doull
> Andrew Doull wrote:
>
> > On 2006-12-11 23:45:55, Neil Stevens wrote:
> >
> > I sell this module for $20 on Xbox Live and the PS3 and Wii online
> > services.
> Sorry, no can't do that with a GPL program. Because giving the source isn't
> the only requirement for the GPL. The user must also have all the tools
> required to change, recompile and use the resulting binary himself. With
> your scheme, the user will not be able to do that because binaries on the
> consoles are signed.
>
> You are in breach of the GPL, you fail.
From http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the
source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation
of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed
need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
accompanies the executable."
I don't see a requirement here to make a compiler available. Even if there is a
requirement, instead of distributing on a console platform, I could still
distribute a module encumbered with DRM on the PC platform.
As always, this is a hypothetical discussion and I am not intending of doing any
of this.
Andrew Doull
> Andrew Doull wrote:
> > How does the GPL provide the appropriate mechanisms to stop this business model?
> > Or is it one that you are happy with?
>
> It doesn't. And I don't see that it needs to.
Cool. And I was expecting an argument ;)
For my next trick, I was going to propose that the various Angband info.txt
files get distributed under the Open Content License as opposed to the GPL.
They feel 'contenty' enough to me... particularly with all that prose.
> The work put in has been
> shared, by the terms of the license, so that others can build on it.
> That's all the license seeks to do.
>
> People looking for socialism need to look beyond copyright law to get there.
Andrew
Andrew Sidwell
> I don't see a requirement here to make a compiler available. Even if there is a
> requirement, instead of distributing on a console platform, I could still
> distribute a module encumbered with DRM on the PC platform.
GPL v3 sorts out some of the DRM and signing problems. It should make
it much harder to sign something for a console without also giving
others means of signing it for said console. (At least, the first
drafts did. Haven't checked up on it much recently.)
Andrew Sidwell
konijn_
> The day after you release ToME 3 final, I release the Generic Roguelike
> Universal Engine version 1. Its a fork of ToME 3 final, but I've changed the
> makefile and references in the code from ToME to GRUE. I advertise it as having
> advantages to ToME because GRUE is easier to type with capslock on. I release it
> under the GPL, with the correct attribution, and make the source code
> available.
Ooh, very evil.
> I provide a website with massive amounts of documentation for the GRUE that I
> have authored.
Thanks!
>I make it clear that this documentation cannot be distributed
> with other roguelike engines, only the GRUE.
Since you cant sue for deep linking some people would still deep link
to your site, did I say thanks already ;)
> I have Google advertising that I
> profit from on the site. I also release a book on how to program the GRUE.
Why thanks !!
>I buy google keywords on searches on words like Pernangband, roguelike and ToME
> that point to the GRUE website. The website forums become popular, and drive
> and developers jump ship from ToME to GRUE. I sell t-shirts.
Wow, now if that would happen, you would have to like *gasp* pay them.
I guess Neil and DG wouldn't mind to get paid to keep working on GPL'd
code ;) Unless you meant module coders.
> I also release a module for the GRUE, that implements intellectual content that
> I've licensed from a 3rd party. Say, for arguments sake, DragonBall Z. I sell
> this module for $20 on Xbox Live and the PS3 and Wii online services.
I want some of that stuff you smoke ;)
>I strictly enforce my licensing by suing anyone using DragonBall Z without such
> authorisation. I make the modifications to the GRUE engine required to get it
> working in these environments available to download. So ToME benefits.
Thanks.
> Unfortunately, ToME doesn't have contractual agreements with Microsoft, Sony or
> Nintendo to distribute anything over their networks, so the GPL changes I made
> are worthless.
That is not certain, for one you would give ToME a good graphical
backend, allow it do animations, add more support for sound, music etc.
( if you really want to sell your game that is )
> I make enough money to continue releasing modules that make me more money. Note
> that the modules are all copyrighted by me, and not released under the GPL. So
> the content I am generating is not useable by anyone running ToME.
Certain ? Why would a paid for module not run under ToME ? ( Are you
talking about legal or technical restrictions ? )
> How does the GPL provide the appropriate mechanisms to stop this business model?
Ah, it does not stop it, and some people have joined this model.
GCompris tried it, got a lot of bad publicity and is basically now a
shadow of what it could have been. Compiere had an enormous boost, but
their non-free documentation ( not even on a site ), their arcane
compiling process and some other stuff have so much slowed down their
progress that they as well have become shadows of themselves. Sometimes
it works, some it doesnt. The one thing GPL provides is the bane of
underperformance; if you drop the ball on GRUE development, someone can
take all your code and start competing with the Heroic Angband! Engine.
( Sorry HA! is the best I could come up with )
> Or is it one that you are happy with?
Well, yes & no. I have three kids to feed and more importantly college
to pay for... And if one can commercialize *band without taking away
from this community, then what the hell, why not ?
Neil Stevens
> On 2006-12-12 22:26:23, Neil Stevens <ne...@hakubi.us> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Doull wrote:
>>> How does the GPL provide the appropriate mechanisms to stop this business model?
>>> Or is it one that you are happy with?
>> It doesn't. And I don't see that it needs to.
>
> Cool. And I was expecting an argument ;)
Well I'm not a fan of GNU, that's why there's no argument. The only
reason I'm in favor of re-licensing the T-Engine is that while I'd never
use a GNU license on my own new code, I dislike the Moria license even more!
Christophe
> Christophe Cavalaria wrote:
>> Sorry, no can't do that with a GPL program. Because giving the
>> source isn't the only requirement for the GPL. The user must also
>> have all the tools required to change, recompile and use the
>> resulting binary himself. With your scheme, the user will not be
>> able to do that because binaries on the consoles are signed.
>
> Cite?
It's just the common point of view on the libSDL
mailing list that it cannot be used in console games because of the
point I made. Since the LGPL is slightly less restrictive than the GPL,
I just assume that the same applies to the GPL.
Now, judging from :
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code
means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control
compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special
exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is
normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the
executable."
The points that I think cause that are :
- the scripts used to control compilation ( no problem ) and
installation of the executable. You didn't give any script or any other
tool used to install the executable to the end user
- one can say that the compiler and dev environment for consoles isn't
part of what is normally distributed with that said console. And so it
must be made available somehow for all users of the GPL binary
magnate
> Andrew Doull wrote:
> > How does the GPL provide the appropriate mechanisms to stop this business model?
> > Or is it one that you are happy with?
>
> It doesn't. And I don't see that it needs to. The work put in has been
> shared, by the terms of the license, so that others can build on it.
> That's all the license seeks to do.
>
> People looking for socialism need to look beyond copyright law to get there.
Well yes, they do - but copyright law is a great place to start.
CC
Gileba
> see Angband under a "free" licence and you write code for a variant or
> patches, please reply to this post with some declaration of intent.
I wrote a few bug-fixes in the past and had a variant once (very small,
never really published it). If anything of my code is used in Vanilla
Angband or other *bands, you can count me in as well...
Gileba
Andrew Doull
>
> > The day after you release ToME 3 final, I release the Generic Roguelike
> > Universal Engine version 1. Its a fork of ToME 3 final, but I've changed the
> > makefile and references in the code from ToME to GRUE. I advertise it as having
> > advantages to ToME because GRUE is easier to type with capslock on. I release it
> > under the GPL, with the correct attribution, and make the source code
> > available.
>
> Ooh, very evil.
I rank a lowly 3 out of 10 on the evilness scale. DarkGod ranking 10 of course.
The most evil thing I ever did only provoked a mild comment from Leon Marrick.
[1]
I believe he devoted a little more effort to his critique of ToME. [2] ;)
Andrew
Andrew Doull
Sorry to double post, but I just realise I accidentally deleted the quoted line.
The 'evil scheme' was mine. The comment below the evil scheme was konijn's.
Andrew
konijn_
Andrew Doull wrote:
> On 2006-12-12 23:46:51, "konijn_" <kon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > The day after you release ToME 3 final, I release the Generic Roguelike
> > > Universal Engine version 1. Its a fork of ToME 3 final, but I've changed the
> > > makefile and references in the code from ToME to GRUE. I advertise it as having
> > > advantages to ToME because GRUE is easier to type with capslock on. I release it
> > > under the GPL, with the correct attribution, and make the source code
> > > available.
> >
> > Ooh, very evil.
>
> I rank a lowly 3 out of 10 on the evilness scale. DarkGod ranking 10 of course.
> The most evil thing I ever did only provoked a mild comment from Leon Marrick.
Hmmm, where would you put Yumi of Anime fame then ? He actually basks
in the suffering of his players ;)
> [1]
>
> I believe he devoted a little more effort to his critique of ToME. [2] ;)
>
>
> Andrew
>
<SNIP>
Twisted
I recommend we start by pushing the "delete" key. Copyright law has
outlived its usefulness. That happened the day it stopped being used to
regulate the publishing industry and started being used to regulate
every tom, dick, and harry.
Twisted
> I recommend we start by pushing the "delete" key. Copyright law has
> outlived its usefulness. That happened the day it stopped being used to
> regulate the publishing industry and started being used to regulate
> every tom, dick, and harry.
BTW, for further reading:
http://www.againstmonopoly.org/
http://www.questioncopyright.org/
Hugo Kornelis
(snip)
>So, if your name isn't on the page [1], but you would like to eventually
>see Angband under a "free" licence and you write code for a variant or
>patches, please reply to this post with some declaration of intent.
Hi Andrew,
Any or all of the changes in my UI patch can be incorporated in any
*band and distributed under the GPL license.
Best, Hugo
--
Angband spoilers: http://www.juti.nl/hugo/Angband/Spoiler/index.htm
Angband UI Patch: http://www.juti.nl/hugo/Angband/UIpatch/index.htm
--