Angband OpenSource Initiative

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Robert Ruehlmann

unread,
Jun 7, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/7/00
to
I have started the 'Angband OpenSource Initiative' to make Angband available
under the GNU General Public License as well as the traditional Angband
license.

Such a change would bring many benefits for the Angband community like the
inclusion of Angband on the various Linux distributions, the possibility to
use services such as SourceForge, and greater legal security. So if you
have contributed to the Angband source and want to support the Angband
OpenSource Initiative then take a look at:
http://thangorodrim.angband.org/opensource.html

--
Robert Ruehlmann ( r...@angband.org )
"Thangorodrim - The Angband Page" : http://thangorodrim.angband.org/
Visit the #angband chat channel at Othernet (irc.othernet.org).


Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:53:36 +0200, "Robert Ruehlmann"
<robert.r...@cas.de> wrote:

>Such a change would bring many benefits for the Angband community like the
>inclusion of Angband on the various Linux distributions, the possibility to
>use services such as SourceForge, and greater legal security. So if you
>have contributed to the Angband source and want to support the Angband
>OpenSource Initiative then take a look at:
>http://thangorodrim.angband.org/opensource.html

I'd like to counter those benefits of yours:

1) Angband certainly _can_ be found in various 'contrib' directories
whose snapshots are often found on cover CDs. Whether it could make it
into the main RH distribution (as Debian's broad enough to accomodate
it) is a suspended matter.
2) What is so special about SourceForge and why is it superior to the
CVS you're using now?
3) Greater legal security - are the courts more disposed to regard GPL
favourably than a home-made license? I doubt so. Actually, GPL creates
an outlet to dishonesty allowing money to be taken for distributing
Angband.

Which said, I fail to see any reasonable merits of transition, which
will only involve problems regarding code attribution (who wrote what
and needs to be asked).

Gwidon S. Naskrent (nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl)
GEU/J d- s+:+ a-- C+++ ULB++>++++ P- E W++ N+++ o? K? w+ O-- M-- V--
PS++ PE- Y PGP->++ t-- 5-- X- R* tv- b+ DI-- D++ G++ e+++ h! r! y?

Robert Ruehlmann

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:53:36 +0200, "Robert Ruehlmann"
> <robert.r...@cas.de> wrote:
> >Such a change would bring many benefits for the Angband community like
the
> >inclusion of Angband on the various Linux distributions, the possibility
to
> >use services such as SourceForge, and greater legal security. So if you
> >have contributed to the Angband source and want to support the Angband
> >OpenSource Initiative then take a look at:
> >http://thangorodrim.angband.org/opensource.html
>
> I'd like to counter those benefits of yours:
>
> 1) Angband certainly _can_ be found in various 'contrib' directories
> whose snapshots are often found on cover CDs. Whether it could make it
> into the main RH distribution (as Debian's broad enough to accomodate
> it) is a suspended matter.

Even if it is on the CDs (didn't find it on mine), it's usually not included
in the package manager and so there is only a slim chance that somebody
stumbles over it.

> 2) What is so special about SourceForge and why is it superior to the
> CVS you're using now?

The ZAngband DevTeam uses a CVS repository sponsored by Remco Gerlich (big
thanks to him :-). It is a small server that can handle the accesses from
the DevTeam, but isn't prepared for large traffic. So an anonymous CVS
repository is not possible. My private Angband CVS repository has a
similiar problem - I'm the only one who can use it since it's not on the
net. And SourceForge offers many other features like FTP and web-sites,
mailing-lists, project management and bug tracking software,
discussion-forums, ...

> 3) Greater legal security - are the courts more disposed to regard GPL
> favourably than a home-made license? I doubt so. Actually, GPL creates
> an outlet to dishonesty allowing money to be taken for distributing
> Angband.

I'm pretty sure that the current Angband/Moria license or any license that I
could write would be ripped apart by a lawyer. The GPL has a much better
chance to survive a day in court. That the GPL has a lot of people behind
it doesn't hurt either, since companies will think twice before breaking it
and risking the resulting bad press.

I see I missed point 4 in the post (but it's on the webpage) ... using code
that is available under the GPL.

> Which said, I fail to see any reasonable merits of transition, which
> will only involve problems regarding code attribution (who wrote what
> and needs to be asked).

And I think the benefits are worth the effort.

Russ Allbery

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
Robert Ruehlmann <robert.r...@cas.de> writes:

> The ZAngband DevTeam uses a CVS repository sponsored by Remco Gerlich
> (big thanks to him :-). It is a small server that can handle the
> accesses from the DevTeam, but isn't prepared for large traffic. So an
> anonymous CVS repository is not possible. My private Angband CVS
> repository has a similiar problem - I'm the only one who can use it
> since it's not on the net. And SourceForge offers many other features
> like FTP and web-sites, mailing-lists, project management and bug
> tracking software, discussion-forums, ...

While SourceForge overall sounds like a decent idea, I really hope that
the discussion forums won't be used by the developers to talk about
changes to Angband. I'd really rather see that discussion stay here on
this newsgroup; I have no desire to try to follow a mailing list or,
worse, a web board (*shudder*).

--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Jules Bean

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:53:36 +0200, "Robert Ruehlmann"
> <robert.r...@cas.de> wrote:
>
> >http://thangorodrim.angband.org/opensource.html
>
> I'd like to counter those benefits of yours:
>
> 1) Angband certainly _can_ be found in various 'contrib' directories
> whose snapshots are often found on cover CDs. Whether it could make it
> into the main RH distribution (as Debian's broad enough to accomodate
> it) is a suspended matter.

I am confused by your parenthetical phrase, so I'll clarify. Probably
you know this, but: [z]angband is not part of Debian, however it is
packaged in the 'non-free' archive, which is hosted by debian as a
service to its users. However, [z]angband isn't on the official CDs
(actually, it would be /illegal/ to distribute angband on a CD sold for
profit, as most are, although I daresay RAK won't sue), and may or may
not be on unofficial CDs which other organisations produce.

> Which said, I fail to see any reasonable merits of transition, which
> will only involve problems regarding code attribution (who wrote what
> and needs to be asked).

The merit is, that free software is (in some peoples opinion, e.g. mine)
a great thing, and it would be great to see angband as free software.
But I'm certainly not having *that* flamewar here (flames by personal
mail, please!)

--
Jules Bean | Any sufficiently advanced
jules@{debian.org,jellybean.co.uk} | technology is indistinguishable
jm...@hermes.cam.ac.uk | from a perl script

tri...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
A newsgroup has been created for open source discussions,
initiatives and materials. Please post to alt.comp.opensource
and if you can't find it, ask your ISP to carry it.

Regards

See-Toh Wai Keong


In article <393ec799...@news.tpnet.pl>,


nask...@hoth.amu.edu.pl wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:53:36 +0200, "Robert Ruehlmann"
> <robert.r...@cas.de> wrote:
>

> >Such a change would bring many benefits for the Angband community
like the
> >inclusion of Angband on the various Linux distributions, the
possibility to
> >use services such as SourceForge, and greater legal security. So if
you
> >have contributed to the Angband source and want to support the
Angband
> >OpenSource Initiative then take a look at:

> >http://thangorodrim.angband.org/opensource.html
>
> I'd like to counter those benefits of yours:
>
> 1) Angband certainly _can_ be found in various 'contrib' directories
> whose snapshots are often found on cover CDs. Whether it could make it
> into the main RH distribution (as Debian's broad enough to accomodate
> it) is a suspended matter.

> 2) What is so special about SourceForge and why is it superior to the
> CVS you're using now?

> 3) Greater legal security - are the courts more disposed to regard GPL
> favourably than a home-made license? I doubt so. Actually, GPL creates
> an outlet to dishonesty allowing money to be taken for distributing
> Angband.
>

> Which said, I fail to see any reasonable merits of transition, which
> will only involve problems regarding code attribution (who wrote what
> and needs to be asked).
>

> Gwidon S. Naskrent (nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl)
> GEU/J d- s+:+ a-- C+++ ULB++>++++ P- E W++ N+++ o? K? w+ O-- M-- V--
> PS++ PE- Y PGP->++ t-- 5-- X- R* tv- b+ DI-- D++ G++ e+++ h! r! y?
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Jules Bean

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
tri...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> A newsgroup has been created for open source discussions,
> initiatives and materials. Please post to alt.comp.opensource
> and if you can't find it, ask your ISP to carry it.

Whilst you're correct, the licensing terms of angband are undoubtedly of
interest to angband players too, so I would certainly argue it's on
topic here too.

Although I'd certainly rather it didn't escalate into the flamewar it
did once..

LucFrench

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to

Mostly, they're hoping for a ZAngband development forum. (And maybe something
similar elsewhere.)

You can go back to sleep, Russ.

Thanks
Luc "Developer, but not a coder" French

Ed Cogburn

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:53:36 +0200, "Robert Ruehlmann"
> <robert.r...@cas.de> wrote:
>
> >Such a change would bring many benefits for the Angband community like the
> >inclusion of Angband on the various Linux distributions, the possibility to
> >use services such as SourceForge, and greater legal security. So if you
> >have contributed to the Angband source and want to support the Angband
> >OpenSource Initiative then take a look at:
> >http://thangorodrim.angband.org/opensource.html
>
> I'd like to counter those benefits of yours:
>
> 1) Angband certainly _can_ be found in various 'contrib' directories
> whose snapshots are often found on cover CDs. Whether it could make it
> into the main RH distribution (as Debian's broad enough to accomodate
> it) is a suspended matter.


There is a move afoot among Debian developers to *end* the support
for "contrib" and "non-free". The argument is ongoing now in Debian
Devel mailing list.


[snip]


> 3) Greater legal security - are the courts more disposed to regard GPL
> favourably than a home-made license? I doubt so. Actually, GPL creates
> an outlet to dishonesty allowing money to be taken for distributing
> Angband.


Now who do you *seriously* believe is going to take Angband, binary
and source, package it, and sell it as commercial? We're not talking
Diablo II here. GPL allows "selling" the source so that software
distributors can charge for the service of providing this product on a
CD. 99% of the people we're talking about are distributing gigabytes
of source/binary code as in the case of Linux distributors. Even
though the cost has nothing to do with what's on the CD, legally the
distributors must be allowed to "distribute Angband for a fee" to put
Angband on the CD. I don't see any dishonesty here. The distributors
are providing a service, they are not "selling" the software, they are
providing it on a CD to make it available in a convenient form for
those who don't want to spend hours or days downloading all that stuff
from the Net, assuming they even have net access.


>
> Which said, I fail to see any reasonable merits of transition, which
> will only involve problems regarding code attribution (who wrote what
> and needs to be asked).


I see a big merit for this transition: Angband will suddenly be
distributed on a wide basis, on every Linux/BSD distribution for one,
and on those shareware/freeware distributions in the Windows world who
can't currently put Angband on their CDs for another. Angband will
reach hundreds, maybe thousands, of people who might never have heard
of it otherwise.


--
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire

Ed C.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Chris Weisiger

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
Robert Ruehlmann wrote:
>
> I have started the 'Angband OpenSource Initiative' to make Angband available
> under the GNU General Public License as well as the traditional Angband
> license.

Ah, if you need my permission to use the vaults, then I grant
permission to put them under whatever license you want. Go wild :)

--
enipykroP- ".tnenamrep wohon t'nia ti ,nos ,suoires os efil ekat t'noD"

The Angband Newbie Guide: http://home4.pacific.net.sg/~jianson/tang/tang.html
VaultMania: http://home4.pacific.net.sg/~jianson/vaults/vaults.html

Chris Weisiger

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:53:36 +0200, "Robert Ruehlmann"
> <robert.r...@cas.de> wrote:
>
> >Such a change would bring many benefits for the Angband community like the
> >inclusion of Angband on the various Linux distributions, the possibility to
> >use services such as SourceForge, and greater legal security. So if you
> >have contributed to the Angband source and want to support the Angband
> >OpenSource Initiative then take a look at:
> >http://thangorodrim.angband.org/opensource.html
>
> I'd like to counter those benefits of yours:

<snip>

> 3) Greater legal security - are the courts more disposed to regard GPL
> favourably than a home-made license? I doubt so. Actually, GPL creates
> an outlet to dishonesty allowing money to be taken for distributing
> Angband.

I find it hard to believe that someone would go to the effort to try to
sell Angband; after all, aren't they required to tell where people can
get it on the web?
In other words, that "outlet to dishonesty" requires far too much
effort for most pirates/thieves/et cetera.

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 14:21:18 +0100, Jules Bean
<jm...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>(actually, it would be /illegal/ to distribute angband on a CD sold for
>profit, as most are, although I daresay RAK won't sue), and may or may
>not be on unofficial CDs which other organisations produce.

I heard a four-CD debian distrib is coming out in the summer. So I
figured out Z(Angband) would fit on it as well.

>The merit is, that free software is (in some peoples opinion, e.g. mine)
>a great thing, and it would be great to see angband as free software.

Angband *is* free software. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The
current license is not hurting anybody and everyone has a fair chance
to branch their own variant at any time they like. Even if their
contribution is something like 0.1% of the total code it's allowed for
them to tout it as their own.

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 15:17:41 GMT, tri...@my-deja.com wrote:

>A newsgroup has been created for open source discussions,
>initiatives and materials. Please post to alt.comp.opensource
>and if you can't find it, ask your ISP to carry it.

I won't risk FUTing to a newsgroup I may not be able to post to -
few news servers in my country carry all alt.* groups, fewer are
available to dialup users, and fewer still (if any at all) allow
posting to them.

GSN

PS. Write after the quoted part.


Johan Kullstam

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl (Gwidon S. Naskrent) writes:

> On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:53:36 +0200, "Robert Ruehlmann"
> <robert.r...@cas.de> wrote:
>
> >Such a change would bring many benefits for the Angband community like the
> >inclusion of Angband on the various Linux distributions, the possibility to
> >use services such as SourceForge, and greater legal security. So if you
> >have contributed to the Angband source and want to support the Angband
> >OpenSource Initiative then take a look at:
> >http://thangorodrim.angband.org/opensource.html
>
> I'd like to counter those benefits of yours:
>

> 1) Angband certainly _can_ be found in various 'contrib' directories
> whose snapshots are often found on cover CDs. Whether it could make it
> into the main RH distribution (as Debian's broad enough to accomodate
> it) is a suspended matter.

the distributions could include angband but the license forbids it.
most distributions sell their disk. even a nominal fee for media,
shipping and handling is precluded. one could make the argument that
you have to pay an ISP for access to angband and that is somehow a
sale of it.

> 2) What is so special about SourceForge and why is it superior to the
> CVS you're using now?

> 3) Greater legal security - are the courts more disposed to regard GPL
> favourably than a home-made license? I doubt so. Actually, GPL creates
> an outlet to dishonesty allowing money to be taken for distributing
> Angband.

why shouldn't you be able to make money distributing angband? if i
provide a service of putting angband on a disk and mailing it to you,
why is it dishonest for me to charge a price? you have the right to
refuse. it's not like a person couldn't get angband any other way.
if i were silly enough to change $500 i don't think i'd get many
buyers. but that's ok.

GPL allows sales because it doesn't hurt anyone. how does the sale of
emacs and linux by, e.g., redhat insult or damage richard stallman and
linux torvalds?

> Which said, I fail to see any reasonable merits of transition, which
> will only involve problems regarding code attribution (who wrote what
> and needs to be asked).

nod. last time this came up, it was dropped for these very practical
reasons. no one could reach all the main angband authors. therefore
they could not agree to re-license it. i wouldn't think this has
changed since last time it was tried.

--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[kull...@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!

Shayne Steele

unread,
Jun 8, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/8/00
to
In article <m27lbzr...@euler.axel.nom>,

There is NO reason to re-license Angband (too much of a hassle),
BUT it would be nice if a VARIANT of Angband WAS licensed under
GPL. This might mean a lot of coding to fill in for the
Angband code that Authors do not allow to be GPLd (most likely
because just finding these authors to ask for permission is
difficult). Hopefully this new variant IS different ('better')
than Angband.


--
Shayne Steele Graduate Student in Computer Science at FSU
ste...@cs.fsu.edu http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~steele/
With great abilities come great responsibilities. -- Stan Lee

Chris Kern

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 13:16:24 -0400, Ed Cogburn
<ecog...@greene.xtn.net> posted the following:

> Now who do you *seriously* believe is going to take Angband, binary
>and source, package it, and sell it as commercial?

Campaign Creations! They watch every move we make...

-Chris

Julian Lighton

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
In article <393ec799...@news.tpnet.pl>,

Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@hoth.amu.edu.pl> wrote:
>On Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:53:36 +0200, "Robert Ruehlmann"
><robert.r...@cas.de> wrote:
>
>>Such a change would bring many benefits for the Angband community like the
>>inclusion of Angband on the various Linux distributions, the possibility to
>>use services such as SourceForge, and greater legal security. So if you
>>have contributed to the Angband source and want to support the Angband
>>OpenSource Initiative then take a look at:
>>http://thangorodrim.angband.org/opensource.html
>
>I'd like to counter those benefits of yours:
>
>1) Angband certainly _can_ be found in various 'contrib' directories
>whose snapshots are often found on cover CDs.

And this is a violation of the license.

>Whether it could make it
>into the main RH distribution (as Debian's broad enough to accomodate
>it) is a suspended matter.

Debian can't make it part of the main distribution. The license
(which restricts some kinds of redistribution) prevents them.

>3) Greater legal security - are the courts more disposed to regard GPL
>favourably than a home-made license? I doubt so.

The GPL was carefully constructed. The Angband license wasn't.

>Actually, GPL creates
>an outlet to dishonesty allowing money to be taken for distributing
>Angband.

No, it creates an outlet for _honestly_ allowing money to be taken.

>Which said, I fail to see any reasonable merits of transition, which
>will only involve problems regarding code attribution (who wrote what
>and needs to be asked).

That is the problem, and it may be insurmountable, but it'd be nice,
IMO, if it could be done.
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
"You will know pain, and you will know fear, and then you will die.
Have a pleasant flight." -- Babylon 5

Julian Lighton

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
In article <393fdfc1...@news.icm.edu.pl>,

Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@hoth.amu.edu.pl> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 14:21:18 +0100, Jules Bean
><jm...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>(actually, it would be /illegal/ to distribute angband on a CD sold for
>>profit, as most are, although I daresay RAK won't sue), and may or may
>>not be on unofficial CDs which other organisations produce.
>
>I heard a four-CD debian distrib is coming out in the summer. So I
>figured out Z(Angband) would fit on it as well.

If this distribution is being sold for profit, they can't put
Z(Angband) on it.

>>The merit is, that free software is (in some peoples opinion, e.g. mine)
>>a great thing, and it would be great to see angband as free software.
>
>Angband *is* free software.

It's free as in "no cost". It isn't free as in "no restrictions".

> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The
>current license is not hurting anybody and everyone has a fair chance
>to branch their own variant at any time they like. Even if their
>contribution is something like 0.1% of the total code it's allowed for
>them to tout it as their own.

And this would change in no way if we could GPL the thing.
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
"You can't destroy everything. Where would you sit?"
-- The Tick

mwo...@server-4.stpauls.usyd.edu.au

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:08:29 GMT, Julian Lighton <jl...@fragment.com> wrote:
>> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The
>>current license is not hurting anybody and everyone has a fair chance
>>to branch their own variant at any time they like. Even if their
>>contribution is something like 0.1% of the total code it's allowed for
>>them to tout it as their own.
>
>And this would change in no way if we could GPL the thing.

Wouldn't this require that derived works be placed under the GPL?
Or do works based on angband before a change to a GPL license have
special status?

mrak

Julian Lighton

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
In article <8hp74c$dvf$1...@news.fsu.edu>,

Shayne Steele <ste...@nu.cs.fsu.edu> wrote:
> There is NO reason to re-license Angband (too much of a hassle),
> BUT it would be nice if a VARIANT of Angband WAS licensed under
> GPL. This might mean a lot of coding to fill in for the
> Angband code that Authors do not allow to be GPLd

And this would be just as much a hassle. Furthermore, a variant being
under a different license would inhibit all the steal^H^H^H^Hharing of
code that goes on now.

(Of course, even if we could GPL Angband, some variants would still
have problems due to unavailable authors. Sangband has three previous
major contributors, and I'm not sure how many of them are still
contactable.)
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
"The people who have crippled you / You want to see them burn
The gates of life have closed on you / And there's just no return"
-- Black Sabbath

Julian Lighton

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
In article <slrn8k3cnq....@server-4.stpauls.usyd.edu.au>,

Previous derived works would continue under the previous license. New
derived works would be GPL, though Robert's talking about a mixed
license, allowing both GPL and Angband-license, so as not to shut out
older variants from the new code.
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
"He got feet down below his knee
Hold you in his armchair you can feel his disease"
-- The Beatles

Eric Leblanc

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 14:21:18 +0100, Jules Bean
><jm...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>(actually, it would be /illegal/ to distribute angband on a CD sold for
>>profit, as most are, although I daresay RAK won't sue), and may or may
>>not be on unofficial CDs which other organisations produce.
>
>I heard a four-CD debian distrib is coming out in the summer. So I
>figured out Z(Angband) would fit on it as well.

I just happen to be the ZAnbang packager for Debian and it won't be on the
CD. I am certain that we won't get sued if we did put it on a CD but debian
won't take the chance.

>
>>The merit is, that free software is (in some peoples opinion, e.g. mine)
>>a great thing, and it would be great to see angband as free software.
>

>Angband *is* free software. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The


>current license is not hurting anybody and everyone has a fair chance
>to branch their own variant at any time they like. Even if their
>contribution is something like 0.1% of the total code it's allowed for
>them to tout it as their own.

It would be nice if the *band would have a more permissive license wrt
distribution. As it stands, i can't put it on a CD and sell the CD to
friends/others even if i only charge for the cost of the CD.

--
Eric Leblanc <jug...@debian.org> <ac89...@er.uqam.ca>
Departement de Mathematique % Univ. du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Qc
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"


Jules Bean

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 14:21:18 +0100, Jules Bean
> <jm...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> >The merit is, that free software is (in some peoples opinion, e.g. mine)
> >a great thing, and it would be great to see angband as free software.
>
> Angband *is* free software. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The
> current license is not hurting anybody and everyone has a fair chance
> to branch their own variant at any time they like. Even if their
> contribution is something like 0.1% of the total code it's allowed for
> them to tout it as their own.

Definition problem ;-)

Anyhow the point is:

1) In your opinion it ain't broke.
2) In mine it is

If we fix mine, we don't hurt yours, right? So although you don't
*support* an effort to GPL angband, please don't oppose it unless you
think it is actually bad. And leave the practical problems up to those
of us who think they're worth surmounting.

Jules

Stig E. Sandø

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
ste...@xi.cs.fsu.edu (Shayne Steele) writes:

> BUT it would be nice if a VARIANT of Angband WAS licensed under
> GPL. This might mean a lot of coding to fill in for the

> Angband code that Authors do not allow to be GPLd (most likely
> because just finding these authors to ask for permission is
> difficult). Hopefully this new variant IS different ('better')
> than Angband.

If the z-term code which is largely independent of the angband game
engine was made into a library and given an opensource license that
would probably help, as reinventing all of the fuss with curses, x11,
xaw, windows, etc would be too much of a task if one was to rewrite
the angband game engine with an opensource license. Isn't the z-term
code (and main-xxx.c) more or less done by one or two people?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe st...@ii.uib.no http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/

James W Sager Iii

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to

What would be funny is if you could convince the politicians of america
that open source is a good technology policy with build rights. person
who makes original code must be compensated for every product the
smaller guy makes with additions to his code. We can call it the
Angband ammendment due to the overwhelming success of linux and angband
with free source, and no one is getting paid! The only thing that
matters is praise, and praise is filtered via the channels money would
be in reality. makes ya think don't it?


Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:08:29 GMT, jl...@fragment.com (Julian Lighton)
wrote:

>>Angband *is* free software.
>
>It's free as in "no cost". It isn't free as in "no restrictions".

That's basically true. So what? The restrictions only concern those
who would use Angband contrary to its nature. They do not harm normal
users and developers.

>And this would change in no way if we could GPL the thing.

What do you mean?

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:26:38 GMT, jug...@internet.uqam.ca (Eric
Leblanc) wrote:

>It would be nice if the *band would have a more permissive license wrt
>distribution. As it stands, i can't put it on a CD and sell the CD to
>friends/others even if i only charge for the cost of the CD.

Yeah, maybe. So far this wasn't so big a problem because RL games are
mostly spread through the Net. So we should amend the Angband license
instead of blindly submitting to GPL.

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 22:11:07 GMT, Johan Kullstam
<kull...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:

>the distributions could include angband but the license forbids it.
>most distributions sell their disk. even a nominal fee for media,
>shipping and handling is precluded. one could make the argument that
>you have to pay an ISP for access to angband and that is somehow a
>sale of it.

No, because you aren't paying specifically for Angband downloads.

>why shouldn't you be able to make money distributing angband? if i
>provide a service of putting angband on a disk and mailing it to you,
>why is it dishonest for me to charge a price? you have the right to

Er, is this reasonable given that almost everyone who plays Angband
has net access and can download new versions periodically - not
that new versions appear so often, mind you, on average once a week -
so even on a modem this is like 5-10 minutes of downloading assuming
export isn't broken.

>refuse. it's not like a person couldn't get angband any other way.
>if i were silly enough to change $500 i don't think i'd get many
>buyers. but that's ok.

So why promote unreasonable behaviour?

>GPL allows sales because it doesn't hurt anyone. how does the sale of
>emacs and linux by, e.g., redhat insult or damage richard stallman and
>linux torvalds?

Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.

>nod. last time this came up, it was dropped for these very practical
>reasons. no one could reach all the main angband authors. therefore
>they could not agree to re-license it. i wouldn't think this has
>changed since last time it was tried.

I guess no one's trying to get to RAK and Charles Swiger now, since
they have no known email. The chain of contributors is being started
from Ben and that's why RR thinks a transition to GPL is feasible.

Marcin Juszkiewicz

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:26:38 GMT, Eric Leblanc <jug...@internet.uqam.ca> wrote:

> It would be nice if the *band would have a more permissive license wrt
> distribution. As it stands, i can't put it on a CD and sell the CD to
> friends/others even if i only charge for the cost of the CD.

So I can'y put *band on coverCD of paper magazine because I want money
for magazine?

--
Marcin Juszkiewicz (Szczepan/BlaBla)
szcz...@blabla.w.pl


Jules Bean

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 22:11:07 GMT, Johan Kullstam
> <kull...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >why shouldn't you be able to make money distributing angband? if i
> >provide a service of putting angband on a disk and mailing it to you,
> >why is it dishonest for me to charge a price? you have the right to
>
> Er, is this reasonable given that almost everyone who plays Angband
> has net access and can download new versions periodically - not
> that new versions appear so often, mind you, on average once a week -
> so even on a modem this is like 5-10 minutes of downloading assuming
> export isn't broken.

That's an unfair assumption. Lots of people in the world (indeed most
people ;) don't have modems.

> >GPL allows sales because it doesn't hurt anyone. how does the sale of
> >emacs and linux by, e.g., redhat insult or damage richard stallman and
> >linux torvalds?
>
> Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
> not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.

Incorrect. RedHat /profits/ from emacs and linux. Yes, they make
/lots/ of money. The RedHat directors are very rich men.

And RMS and Linus don't mind. Why not? Because emacs and linux are
distributed under the terms of GPL, guaranteeing source to all
purchasers, so the freedom of the software is preserved.

Is it your honest opinion that RAK, Ben and the angband contributors
would be harmed if it became legal to sell angband?

>
> >nod. last time this came up, it was dropped for these very practical
> >reasons. no one could reach all the main angband authors. therefore
> >they could not agree to re-license it. i wouldn't think this has
> >changed since last time it was tried.
>
> I guess no one's trying to get to RAK and Charles Swiger now, since
> they have no known email. The chain of contributors is being started
> from Ben and that's why RR thinks a transition to GPL is feasible.

RAK posted here not (that) long ago. And Chuck certainly had an email
last time I checked (which was when this flamewar erupted last time!)

Julian Lighton

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
In article <39409eb...@news.icm.edu.pl>,

Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@hoth.amu.edu.pl> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:26:38 GMT, jug...@internet.uqam.ca (Eric
>Leblanc) wrote:
>
>>It would be nice if the *band would have a more permissive license wrt
>>distribution. As it stands, i can't put it on a CD and sell the CD to
>>friends/others even if i only charge for the cost of the CD.
>
>Yeah, maybe. So far this wasn't so big a problem because RL games are
>mostly spread through the Net. So we should amend the Angband license
>instead of blindly submitting to GPL.

We can't do that, either, without jumping through the same set of
hoops. (We could make it more restrictive, but not less.)

If we're going to do that anyway, there's nothing wrong with the GPL.
It accomplishes a useful goal, (forcing source availability) is
probably more likely to hold up in court than anything we can work out
without paying lawyers, and is reasonably effective at stopping
commercialization of the game. (You could take it commercial, but
games don't reaaly have the "selling support" option that normal
software does.)
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
"Nobody will ever let you know / When you ask the reasons why
They just tell you that you're on your own / Fill your head all full of lies"
-- Black Sabbath

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
On 9 Jun 2000 13:20:23 GMT, szcz...@blabla.w.pl (Marcin Juszkiewicz)
wrote:

> So I can'y put *band on coverCD of paper magazine because I want money
>for magazine?

For the magazine, no; you can't if you want the money for the CD.
Proving it is left as an exercise to the reader :)

LEBLANC ERIC

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
Marcin Juszkiewicz (szcz...@blabla.w.pl) wrote:

: On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:26:38 GMT, Eric Leblanc <jug...@internet.uqam.ca> wrote:
:
: > It would be nice if the *band would have a more permissive license wrt
: > distribution. As it stands, i can't put it on a CD and sell the CD to
: > friends/others even if i only charge for the cost of the CD.
:
: So I can'y put *band on coverCD of paper magazine because I want money
: for magazine?

Depends of the interpretation of this snippet of the copyright.

/*
* ANGBAND may be copied and modified freely as long as the above
* credits are retained. No one who-so-ever may sell or market
* this software in any form without the expressed written consent
* of the author Robert Alan Koeneke.
*/


Ed Cogburn

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
mwo...@server-4.stpauls.usyd.edu.au wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:08:29 GMT, Julian Lighton <jl...@fragment.com> wrote:
> >> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The
> >>current license is not hurting anybody and everyone has a fair chance
> >>to branch their own variant at any time they like. Even if their
> >>contribution is something like 0.1% of the total code it's allowed for
> >>them to tout it as their own.
> >
> >And this would change in no way if we could GPL the thing.
>
> Wouldn't this require that derived works be placed under the GPL?
> Or do works based on angband before a change to a GPL license have
> special status?


My understanding is variants derived prior to the GPL being applied
are unaffected.

Ed Cogburn

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:08:29 GMT, jl...@fragment.com (Julian Lighton)
> wrote:
>
> >>Angband *is* free software.
> >
> >It's free as in "no cost". It isn't free as in "no restrictions".
>
> That's basically true. So what? The restrictions only concern those
> who would use Angband contrary to its nature.


Wrong. A distributor isn't trying to use Angband "contrary to its
nature" by including it on one of their CD distributions of software.


> They do not harm normal users and developers.


What about would-be users who don't have access to the Angband
community on the net? "Normal" should not imply Internet-connected.
I remember awhile back getting those 4/6 CD collections of early Linux
plus a ton of other stuff. I found out about a number of programs
from those distributions, programs I otherwise would never have known
about. If Angband is allowed on those distributions its reach would
be dramatically improved.


>
> >And this would change in no way if we could GPL the thing.
>

> What do you mean?


He means the fears you seem to have are unfounded.

Ed Cogburn

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:26:38 GMT, jug...@internet.uqam.ca (Eric
> Leblanc) wrote:
>
> >It would be nice if the *band would have a more permissive license wrt
> >distribution. As it stands, i can't put it on a CD and sell the CD to
> >friends/others even if i only charge for the cost of the CD.
>
> Yeah, maybe. So far this wasn't so big a problem because RL games are
> mostly spread through the Net.


Thanks to a restrictive license that is the only way it can spread.


> So we should amend the Angband license instead of blindly submitting
> to GPL.


"Blindly submitting"? Could you state your problem with the GPL in a
more rational fashion? Specifically how does the GPL hurt you?

Ed Cogburn

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>
> On 9 Jun 2000 13:20:23 GMT, szcz...@blabla.w.pl (Marcin Juszkiewicz)
> wrote:
>
> > So I can'y put *band on coverCD of paper magazine because I want money
> >for magazine?
>
> For the magazine, no; you can't if you want the money for the CD.
> Proving it is left as an exercise to the reader :)


Ok, someone slaps Angband binary and source on a CD and sells it for
$40. Who's going to spend that much for a game whose source is
available on the net? All we need to do is add license, and support
info in game, as part of help or version command. Tell them where to
find angband on the net, plus r.g.r.a. At the very least this person
will buy that CD only once, from then on he'll know where to get it
from off the net, or find it available in another multi-CD
distribution for less money.
As much as we all like Angband, this is not a game that has mass
appeal. There aren't going to be anyone doing my example above,
because it just won't be worth it.

Ed Cogburn

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to


Campaign Creations? Was this a joke that went over my head? I
searched their website for "[z]angband" and got nothing.

Ed Cogburn

unread,
Jun 9, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/9/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 22:11:07 GMT, Johan Kullstam
> <kull...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >the distributions could include angband but the license forbids it.
> >most distributions sell their disk. even a nominal fee for media,
> >shipping and handling is precluded. one could make the argument that
> >you have to pay an ISP for access to angband and that is somehow a
> >sale of it.
>
> No, because you aren't paying specifically for Angband downloads.


And when you buy a CD distribution with half a gig of program source
on it you aren't specifically paying for Angband either.


>
> >why shouldn't you be able to make money distributing angband? if i
> >provide a service of putting angband on a disk and mailing it to you,
> >why is it dishonest for me to charge a price? you have the right to
>
> Er, is this reasonable given that almost everyone who plays Angband
> has net access and can download new versions periodically - not
> that new versions appear so often, mind you, on average once a week -
> so even on a modem this is like 5-10 minutes of downloading assuming
> export isn't broken.


And just exactly how do you know that the "almost everyone" who plays
it now are the 100% of potential players who might want to play it?
You are aware that Net access is not a universal thing? Even in the
US the flow of newcomers to the net has been decreasing, and last I
heard we had less than 50% of our folks on the net, and its unlikely
to become a significant majority.
I can easily imagine someone, not on the net, but having a magazine
subscription, and in that magazine there are ads for CD distributions
of software that this person occasionally buys. Do these players not
count in your book?


>
> >refuse. it's not like a person couldn't get angband any other way.
> >if i were silly enough to change $500 i don't think i'd get many
> >buyers. but that's ok.
>
> So why promote unreasonable behaviour?


The behavior we're talking about isn't unreasonable.


>
> >GPL allows sales because it doesn't hurt anyone. how does the sale of
> >emacs and linux by, e.g., redhat insult or damage richard stallman and
> >linux torvalds?
>
> Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
> not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.


I thought we're talking about [V]?


[snip]

William Tanksley

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 23:01:01 GMT, LEBLANC ERIC wrote:

>Depends of the interpretation of this snippet of the copyright.
>/*
> * ANGBAND may be copied and modified freely as long as the above
> * credits are retained. No one who-so-ever may sell or market
> * this software in any form without the expressed written consent
> * of the author Robert Alan Koeneke.
> */

Hmm... You know, by the wording of this, I really suspect that all we'd
need to fix things up is a universal wavier (express written consent for
anyone and everyone) from RAK.

Other than that, this is similar to a standard BSD license.

Since we have to get consent from RAK anyhow, it would seem by far easier
to get *this* consent from him, since legally that possibility is explicit
in the license anyhow. It doesn't matter if Ben or I disagree and think
our contributions shouldn't be sold; we agreed to allow them to be sold if
RAK wanted them to be, and that's the end of it (legally).

So let's go for it -- unilateral relicensing IS possible.

The resulting license won't be the GPL, but I don't think that's really
needed.

Wait, actually, the resulting license could be the GPL: RAK could grant
his license to sell in terms of the GPL. That way, Angband could be
maintained exactly as now under the Angband license, and anyone wishing to
sell it would simply have to look to RAK's license.

But again, that's more complicated.

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley

Julian Lighton

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
In article <39409e4...@news.icm.edu.pl>,

Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@hoth.amu.edu.pl> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 03:08:29 GMT, jl...@fragment.com (Julian Lighton)
>wrote:
>
>>>Angband *is* free software.
>>
>>It's free as in "no cost". It isn't free as in "no restrictions".
>
>That's basically true. So what? The restrictions only concern those
>who would use Angband contrary to its nature. They do not harm normal
>users and developers.

Is distributing Angband on cover CDs really contrary to its nature?
How about making a variant, and keeping your changes to yourself, and
only releasing a PC binary?

The former is disallowed by the current license, the second is allowed.

>>>The
>>>current license is not hurting anybody and everyone has a fair chance
>>>to branch their own variant at any time they like. Even if their
>>>contribution is something like 0.1% of the total code it's allowed for
>>>them to tout it as their own.
>>

>>And this would change in no way if we could GPL the thing.
>
>What do you mean?

It would have helped if you'd left in the context.

GPLing the thing in no way stops somebody from branching a variant
off, nor touting it as their own variant.

--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
"Can I play with madness?" -- Iron Maiden

Julian Lighton

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
In article <39409ef...@news.icm.edu.pl>,

Gwidon S. Naskrent <nask...@hoth.amu.edu.pl> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 22:11:07 GMT, Johan Kullstam
><kull...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:
>>why shouldn't you be able to make money distributing angband? if i
>>provide a service of putting angband on a disk and mailing it to you,
>>why is it dishonest for me to charge a price? you have the right to
>
>Er, is this reasonable given that almost everyone who plays Angband
>has net access

This is unproven. There are certainly people who have posted here
about having obtained Angband before they had net access. We don't
hear about them, because they don't have net access. Furthermore, if
you make it unquestionably legal to distribute Angband through things
like cover CDs, there will be more of them.

> and can download new versions periodically - not
>that new versions appear so often, mind you, on average once a week -

That's often.

>>refuse. it's not like a person couldn't get angband any other way.
>>if i were silly enough to change $500 i don't think i'd get many
>>buyers. but that's ok.
>
>So why promote unreasonable behaviour?

We aren't; it's just not really possible to promote some reasonable
behavior without permitting unreasonable behavior as well.

>>GPL allows sales because it doesn't hurt anyone. how does the sale of
>>emacs and linux by, e.g., redhat insult or damage richard stallman and
>>linux torvalds?
>
>Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
>not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.

Well, those on the DevTeam who've contributed code would have to
permit it before it could be done, so that's not much of an inherent
obstacle.

>>nod. last time this came up, it was dropped for these very practical
>>reasons. no one could reach all the main angband authors. therefore
>>they could not agree to re-license it. i wouldn't think this has
>>changed since last time it was tried.
>
>I guess no one's trying to get to RAK and Charles Swiger now, since
>they have no known email.

RAK's posted not too long ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if Charles
still has email somewhere. Some of the other older contributors might
be a bigger problem.

> The chain of contributors is being started
>from Ben and that's why RR thinks a transition to GPL is feasible.

I'm not sure I understand this. What makes you think they aren't
trying to contact older contributors?

Besides, some of them might actually prove to be irrelevant, if all
their code has disappeared in rewrites. (Though figuring out who
might be non-trivial.)
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
"Elementary penguins singing Hare Krishna
Man you should have seen them kicking Edgar Allen Poe"
-- The Beatles

Zargon

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 05:04:34 GMT, jl...@fragment.com (Julian Lighton)
ate too many hallucinogenic mushrooms and wrote:

>>So why promote unreasonable behaviour?
>
>We aren't; it's just not really possible to promote some reasonable
>behavior without permitting unreasonable behavior as well.

Yeah... *permitting* unreasonable behavior isn't the same as
*promoting* it. Also, trying to charge for the game itself (as opposed
to just for distribution, media, etc.) is unprofitable, since people
can fairly easily also get it for free (it's quite legal after all for
a friend with net access or a disk to copy it for you). Therefore the
"unreasonable" behavior you are worried about is also *irrational*
enough not to be very probable.

>>Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
>>not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.
>
>Well, those on the DevTeam who've contributed code would have to
>permit it before it could be done, so that's not much of an inherent
>obstacle.

Woah, [V] doesn't have a DevTeam, it has Ben, IIRC...


--
Beware the White icky thing. It is more powerful than it seems, because it
talks to the RNG on nearly equal terms. Just when you thought you were safe
because you teleported away from that hell wyrm while you still had 1hp, and
your AC is through the roof... the White icky things will come to get you.

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:29:23 GMT, jl...@fragment.com (Julian Lighton)
wrote:

>>Yeah, maybe. So far this wasn't so big a problem because RL games are
>>mostly spread through the Net. So we should amend the Angband license


>>instead of blindly submitting to GPL.
>

>We can't do that, either, without jumping through the same set of
>hoops. (We could make it more restrictive, but not less.)

So you're going to jump through the hoops to effect the GPL, but
cannot do that to change the license?

>If we're going to do that anyway, there's nothing wrong with the GPL.
>It accomplishes a useful goal, (forcing source availability) is

Er, I'd like to remind that despite the non-obligatory sources clause
no author of Angband variants has dared to hide the source from the
public (mostly because they want their work to be spread over a large
number of platforms).

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 22:08:03 -0400, Ed Cogburn
<ecog...@greene.xtn.net> wrote:

>> Yeah, maybe. So far this wasn't so big a problem because RL games are
>> mostly spread through the Net.
>

> Thanks to a restrictive license that is the only way it can spread.

Noticed I said 'RL games' in general?

Yeah, it's true I've got my first copy of NH 3.2.2 from a Debian
distrib CD, but subsequent ones were from the Net.

>> So we should amend the Angband license instead of blindly submitting
>> to GPL.
>

> "Blindly submitting"? Could you state your problem with the GPL in a
>more rational fashion? Specifically how does the GPL hurt you?

I'm fearing someone will start making real money through copying
Angband.

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 22:24:45 -0400, Ed Cogburn
<ecog...@greene.xtn.net> wrote:

> As much as we all like Angband, this is not a game that has mass
>appeal. There aren't going to be anyone doing my example above,
>because it just won't be worth it.

You newer know what marketing folks are able to contrive.

What about the above example, but adding an attractive, if outdated,
app 'as sold for XXX USD', included together in the price? (nothing
like 40 USD, of course, more like 10-20). How much of the price is for
Angband, and how much for the outdated app?

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 22:33:47 -0400, Ed Cogburn
<ecog...@greene.xtn.net> wrote:

> Campaign Creations? Was this a joke that went over my head? I
>searched their website for "[z]angband" and got nothing.

They have approached RR back in April offering him to add multiplaying
and a better interface (for Win of course) to ZAngbandTk. Not only
have they contacted the wrong person, but the DevTeam has unanimously
rejected any grants we might make to them.

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 17:59:39 +0100, Jules Bean
<jm...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

>That's an unfair assumption. Lots of people in the world (indeed most
>people ;) don't have modems.

So, should the DevTeam start to handle mail orders? Don't be silly,
whoever isn't participating in Angband life on the net is not counted
as a prospective Angband player.

>> Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
>> not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.
>

>Incorrect. RedHat /profits/ from emacs and linux. Yes, they make
>/lots/ of money. The RedHat directors are very rich men.

"They" weren't RH bosses, not RMS and Linus.

And, according to most copyright laws, your right to receive payment
for the transfer of a program license is implicit and you have to
clearly waive it so that the licensee is assured you'll not sue him
later.

>And RMS and Linus don't mind. Why not? Because emacs and linux are
>distributed under the terms of GPL, guaranteeing source to all
>purchasers, so the freedom of the software is preserved.

Apparently they don't mind other people getting the money they should
have :-) A modern kind of asceticism?

>Is it your honest opinion that RAK, Ben and the angband contributors
>would be harmed if it became legal to sell angband?

They could try to sell Angband themselves. But they chose not to,
therefore it wouldn't be fair to let anyone else profit from it.

>RAK posted here not (that) long ago.

Er, give me the message-id - that certainly wasn't within my stay
here.

>And Chuck certainly had an email
>last time I checked (which was when this flamewar erupted last time!)

So? Has he been contacted about the GPL?

Gwidon S. Naskrent

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 22:51:01 -0400, Ed Cogburn
<ecog...@greene.xtn.net> wrote:

> And when you buy a CD distribution with half a gig of program source
>on it you aren't specifically paying for Angband either.

Yes, you are. You can't buy the CD without Angband, you're stuck with
whatever they give you. Through the Net, you decide what to download.

> And just exactly how do you know that the "almost everyone" who plays
>it now are the 100% of potential players who might want to play it?
>You are aware that Net access is not a universal thing? Even in the
>US the flow of newcomers to the net has been decreasing, and last I
>heard we had less than 50% of our folks on the net, and its unlikely
>to become a significant majority.

Whoever plays Angband without Net access is not concerned with the
development of the game - so why should the developers be concerned
about them?

> I can easily imagine someone, not on the net, but having a magazine
>subscription, and in that magazine there are ads for CD distributions
>of software that this person occasionally buys. Do these players not
>count in your book?

No (unless they have second-hand Net access of some kind).

>> Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
>> not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.
>

> I thought we're talking about [V]?

Whatever. RR constitutes the DevTeam for [V].

Jules Bean

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
> >If we're going to do that anyway, there's nothing wrong with the GPL.
> >It accomplishes a useful goal, (forcing source availability) is
>
> Er, I'd like to remind that despite the non-obligatory sources clause
> no author of Angband variants has dared to hide the source from the
> public (mostly because they want their work to be spread over a large
> number of platforms).

You obviously don't remember utumno, then.

Jules Bean

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 17:59:39 +0100, Jules Bean
> <jm...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >That's an unfair assumption. Lots of people in the world (indeed most
> >people ;) don't have modems.
>
> So, should the DevTeam start to handle mail orders? Don't be silly,
> whoever isn't participating in Angband life on the net is not counted
> as a prospective Angband player.

What?

Do I read that correctly?

You're not interested in whether people who aren't on rgra can play
Angband?

I'm gobsmacked.

Surely we all want anyone who has a computer to be able to enjoy
angband? Don't we? Yet you seem to dismiss anyone with internet
access...

>
> >> Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
> >> not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.
> >

> >Incorrect. RedHat /profits/ from emacs and linux. Yes, they make
> >/lots/ of money. The RedHat directors are very rich men.
>
> "They" weren't RH bosses, not RMS and Linus.

OK. Misunderstood you.

>
> And, according to most copyright laws, your right to receive payment
> for the transfer of a program license is implicit and you have to
> clearly waive it so that the licensee is assured you'll not sue him
> later.

Rubbish. Copyright law doesn't say anything about the 'right to receive
payment'. There is no such right. The right concerned is the right to
restrict copying of original work (and hence, you can ask for payment in
return for permission to do so).

>
> >And RMS and Linus don't mind. Why not? Because emacs and linux are
> >distributed under the terms of GPL, guaranteeing source to all
> >purchasers, so the freedom of the software is preserved.
>
> Apparently they don't mind other people getting the money they should
> have :-) A modern kind of asceticism?

Altruism, in fact. A desire to make other people happy.

>
> >Is it your honest opinion that RAK, Ben and the angband contributors
> >would be harmed if it became legal to sell angband?
>
> They could try to sell Angband themselves. But they chose not to,
> therefore it wouldn't be fair to let anyone else profit from it.

I don't agree here. I don't care if other people profit from it (and
note that the current "DevTeam", also know as RR, appears to agree).

I care much more that everyone gets access to it, if they want it.

>
> >RAK posted here not (that) long ago.
>
> Er, give me the message-id - that certainly wasn't within my stay
> here.

Coupla years ago. There's a copy of the message on one of the angband
sites.

>
> >And Chuck certainly had an email
> >last time I checked (which was when this flamewar erupted last time!)
>
> So? Has he been contacted about the GPL?

Not as far as I know.

Jules Bean

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
> >> Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
> >> not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.
> >
> > I thought we're talking about [V]?
>
> Whatever. RR constitutes the DevTeam for [V].

And RR has "waived proceeds from sales".

But I'm confused by your belief that copyright is the right to proceeds
from sales... it's not. It's the right to stop other people copying.

Johan Kullstam

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
Jules Bean <jm...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> writes:

> "Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
> > >> Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
> > >> not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.
> > >
> > > I thought we're talking about [V]?
> >
> > Whatever. RR constitutes the DevTeam for [V].
>
> And RR has "waived proceeds from sales".
>
> But I'm confused by your belief that copyright is the right to proceeds
> from sales... it's not. It's the right to stop other people
> copying.

copyright isn't a right. it's an anti-right, i.e., a removal of
freedom. it's also an artificial construct of the government. the US
constitution excuses this loss of freedom on the belief that
copyrights would encourage innovation.

--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[kull...@ne.mediaone.net]
Don't Fear the Penguin!

Prfnoff

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
In article <3941AD15...@greene.xtn.net>, Ed Cogburn
<ecog...@greene.xtn.net> wrote:

> > Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
> > not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.
> I thought we're talking about [V]?

Yes, but the Evil GSN is ZAngband-minded.


-- Prfnoff (ivnert to reply: tr nv vn)
"Free magical base these robes of Velocity to take it making a primary
weapon of the formal, and when used, if the Dunedain." -- Angband Help,
edited

LucFrench

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
GSN said something along the lines of:

>I'm fearing someone will start making real money through copying
>Angband.

So the fsck what?

LucFrench

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
[Sorry if a previous version went through; it was an accidental post]

GSN wrote:

>I'm fearing someone will start making real money through copying
>Angband.

So what?

Making money is not the problem; somebody making a commercial fork is. And as
long as they're respecting the GPL, it will be easy for the original maintainer
to take the features that they actually desire.

The GPL is a better method of software charity then anything resembling the
Angband license. Just trust me on that.

Thanks
Luc "Derivative" French

Stig E. Sandø

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl (Gwidon S. Naskrent) writes:

> I'm fearing someone will start making real money through copying
> Angband.

Is 'real money' bad?

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stig Erik Sandoe st...@ii.uib.no http://www.ii.uib.no/~stig/

Arcum Dagsson

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
In article <3941d6b0...@news.globalserve.net>,
zar...@hotmail.vom wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 05:04:34 GMT, jl...@fragment.com (Julian Lighton)
> ate too many hallucinogenic mushrooms and wrote:
>
> >>So why promote unreasonable behaviour?
> >
> >We aren't; it's just not really possible to promote some reasonable
> >behavior without permitting unreasonable behavior as well.
>
> Yeah... *permitting* unreasonable behavior isn't the same as
> *promoting* it. Also, trying to charge for the game itself (as opposed
> to just for distribution, media, etc.) is unprofitable, since people
> can fairly easily also get it for free (it's quite legal after all for
> a friend with net access or a disk to copy it for you). Therefore the
> "unreasonable" behavior you are worried about is also *irrational*
> enough not to be very probable.

I don't know about totally unprofitable - I'd personally consider
paying for a cd with angband, all the variants, and a couple of the
older versions on it, as long as the cost of the cd was minimal...


>
> >>Well, if they waived any proceeds from those sales beforehand, then
> >>not. But the DevTeam hasn't yet.
> >

> >Well, those on the DevTeam who've contributed code would have to
> >permit it before it could be done, so that's not much of an inherent
> >obstacle.
>
> Woah, [V] doesn't have a DevTeam, it has Ben, IIRC...

No, it has Robert, since Ben stepped down...

--
--Arcum Dagsson
"You say there's a horse in your bathroom, and all you can do is stand
there naming Beatles songs?"

Chris Kern

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 10:31:15 GMT, nask...@artemida.amu.edu.pl (Gwidon
S. Naskrent) posted the following:

>On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 22:33:47 -0400, Ed Cogburn
><ecog...@greene.xtn.net> wrote:
>
>> Campaign Creations? Was this a joke that went over my head? I
>>searched their website for "[z]angband" and got nothing.
>
>They have approached RR back in April offering him to add multiplaying
>and a better interface (for Win of course) to ZAngbandTk.

Not only that, but they mentioned "contacts" in Blizzard that they
could talk to for possible commercial release, assumgin we added the
multiplayer functions.

Once we made it clear that the source was protected by a license that
prevented a commercial release, they e-mailed back and said that it
would be possible to rewrite all the code.

-Chris

Chris Kern

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00
to
On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:57:54 +0100, Jules Bean
<jm...@hermes.cam.ac.uk> posted the following:

>"Gwidon S. Naskrent" wrote:
>> >If we're going to do that anyway, there's nothing wrong with the GPL.
>> >It accomplishes a useful goal, (forcing source availability) is
>>
>> Er, I'd like to remind that despite the non-obligatory sources clause
>> no author of Angband variants has dared to hide the source from the
>> public (mostly because they want their work to be spread over a large
>> number of platforms).
>
>You obviously don't remember utumno, then.

Matt didn't try to hide the source code of Utumno, he was violating
the license in other ways.

-Chris

Chris Kern

unread,
Jun 10, 2000, 3:00:00 AM6/10/00