Open Blecki opened 10 years ago
I was actually going to bring up licensing, as I noticed that some of the MUD engines have them, but I wasn't 100% which would be a good fit, as GitHub seems to offer quite a few. Somewhere under the umbrella of Creative Commons?
I'm actually going to suggest that the server and the world database have very different licenses. MIT suits me fine for the server; a non-com open source license if other contributors don't like MIT also would be fine. But for content... no. It's free as in free beer, not free as in free range. Let people look at it but lock it up under a strict non-com-non-derivative license.
I agree with you Blecki, our content should be under a stricter license. I was looking at one of the GPL licenses for the server, but I don't have much of an objection to MIT.
I'm not sure what to put the content under yet. I'll get back to this.
I'm going to object to GPL for the server. Right now is the time to set it before we have lots of contributors to convince to agree on it.
I am content with the MIT license as far as the server goes, then.
As far as content goes, I'm not sure what options are really available.
CC BY-NC-ND is one; which is the most restrictive CC license. Attribution, no derivs, non commercial.
I'm quite happy with MIT for server code.
Never really had to license content so not sure; Rob's suggestion seems like a good one.
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Rob notifications@github.com wrote:
As far as content goes, I'm not sure what options are really available.
CC BY-NC-ND is one; which is the most restrictive CC license. Attribution, no derivs, non commercial.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Reddit-Mud/RMUD-DB/issues/1#issuecomment-56474780.
This might be open source, but that doesn't mean our hard work isn't our hard work. Should we apply a copyright to our prose?