Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GPL Violations?

FortKnox (169099) writes | more than 12 years ago

GNU is Not Unix 9

I see it all the time.
I'm really interested if any case makes it through court.
Want to see a violation of the GPL? Log into any mud, and request the source for it.I see it all the time.
I'm really interested if any case makes it through court.
Want to see a violation of the GPL? Log into any mud, and request the source for it.

See what they say.
Most Muds are based on MERC or DIKU. All of them are derivations of a GPL'ed source. I used to have a great time explaining to mud admins that they need to release the source for the mud. They ALWAYS get really pissed. Some even "claim" to call a lawyer on it. Its great fun if you're bored (I used to do it in school, and tried it today, because of a long compile) ;-)

Some things never change, I guess...

cancel ×

9 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

um... (2)

einstein (10761) | more than 12 years ago | (#3120434)

but they don't have to. they only have to release the source if they redistribute the code. does everyone who runs apache have to supply source on demand? no, only when they distribute the binary does source also have to be made available. once again, GPL != EULA. The GPL is a copyright distribution license.
---

Re:um... (0, Troll)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#3120664)

I thought that if you modify the code, and run it (for the mud example, I get a GPL'ed source, modify it bunches, then run the game publicly), you have to provide the source.

What about muds that charge money to play?

I thought both of those points are against the GPL.

Re:um... (2)

einstein (10761) | more than 12 years ago | (#3120805)

I'm pretty sure that that is a flaw in the GPL that RMS is trying to present a solution to with GPL v3... let me google a bit to see if I find anything to support that idea :)...
well, google pointed me back to slashdot. what do you know..
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/01/17/1722 03.shtml
this touches on what we're discussing..
http://wmf.editthispage.com/discuss/ msgReader$5259 ?mode=day
they discuss the web-app loophole here, which is the same as the MUD loophole we're discussing. basically, the GPL only covers distribution. if I take a GPL app, improve it, and run it on server and give people access to it, I don't have the distibute my source. FSF working to close the hole with GPL v3...
---

Re:um... (2)

gartogg (317481) | more than 12 years ago | (#3122119)

"What about muds that charge money to play?"

Ummm... what about companies that charge money to view content stored on linux servers, or run gpl'd database servers and charge money to access them..

DIKU is under GPL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3121329)

DIKU has its own license which is not GPL (it's whatever the danish university in question has in their policy, for one thing you're not allowed to charge for it).

DIKU license has been violated several times but its not a GPL violation (unless you claim the original DIKU was not implemented from scratch but ripped from a GPL'd base).

Anyway, even GPL'd MUD server doesn't have to release source since its not a publically released product. If they're not distributing the binaries, they don't need to provide the source either. As a player, you're only using their hosted service, and you're not entitled to see their code (whether GPL or not).

ok, then (-1)

real_b0fh (557599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3125426)

I'd like the source code for yer MUD then (AZD). Please provide me an URL so I can download it.

thanks.

Re:ok, then (1)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#3127554)

http://azd.sourceforge.net

Wait till I finish it, though.

:-P

Re:ok, then (-1)

real_b0fh (557599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3128575)

smart-ass

I mean the AZD-Rom-2.4 based mud.

maybe I should post the loc here so all your friendly trolls go crapflood the message boards ? ;-)

hmm.. don't think so. that'd get messy ;-)

cheers

I don't think Diku is GPL (1)

tbmaddux (145207) | more than 12 years ago | (#3131618)

I used to work on a CircleMUD.

Here's a copy of the Diku license: http://www.circlemud.org/dlicense.html [circlemud.org]

It doesn't say anything there about releasing source. It does say a lot about crediting the Diku authors, which MUDs do violate.

Furthermore, most MUDs don't distribute at all, but when they do (like when MERC or ROM did), isn't it usually the source and not a compiled binary? I haven't been MUDding in some time so I can't be certain.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>