FortKnox's Journal: GPL Violations?

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...

um...

[einstein]

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...

[einstein]

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...

[gartogg]

"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..

Re:ok, then

[FortKnox]

http://azd.sourceforge.net

Wait till I finish it, though.

:-P

I don't think Diku is GPL

[tbmaddux]

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.