Re: [Nel] Something I don't understand about the license agreement.

[James Hearn]

Bryce Harrington wrote:
> 
> If it is important to you to keep your IP closed, then you should use a
> closed library rather than an open one.  There are many other libraries
> out there that allow for keeping stuff proprietary, and some of them are
> quite good.  Some require fees or other charges in return for use of
> their license.
> 
> NEL, like other open source things, operates on a share-and-share-alike
> principle.  Nevrax is being very generous in providing their code
> openly, so you can see it and use it without having to pay any fees.
> The one condition that they have asked in return is that you do
> likewise.  You have to decide for yourself if their price is acceptable,
> and if so, you're bound to abide by it.  If it isn't, then you should
> use a different piece of code more to your liking (or write your own).
> 
> NEL keeps their game _content_ (e.g., artwork) proprietary while
> releasing their source code; perhaps you could follow that approach as
> well.  Or else you could strive to compete with other users of your
> modified code on the basis of name recognition, performance,
> reliability, and customer service.
> 
> (This is community service - I'm not associated with NEL in any way, but
> admire that they are actually making their source code Free.)
> 
> Bryce
> 
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Jared Mark wrote:
> 
> > I just want to make sure I understand this right...
> >
> > I use this source code to build the base of my game...
> > I do all sorts of work to make my own game built around this core engine...
> > I then try to get people to play the game...
> > People get the game (for free, or at least, for the cost of shipping it, 
> > but no profit can be made on that...)
> > I charge for the monthly service to the game, and make boat loads of 
> > money...
> >
> > But then, because of the way this license reads, someone else can request 
> > the entire source code to my game, set up their own game that's exactly 
> > like mine, and charge people to use it just like I am doing...
> >
> > So if all of the above is correct... what is the point of me making my game 
> > using NeL in the first place?  When someone can just steal my entire game 
> > (not just the NeL source, but all of the "derivitive works" that are 
> > packaged with it as a whole), and run the game service themselves... 
> > basically, taking me out of the loop entirely.
> >
> > If I'm completely off here, I appologise.  I'm extremely new to the whole 
> > "open source" thing...
> >
> > My main concern is that I have a bunch of gameplay concepts that I want to 
> > implement... having nothing to do with graphical quality, or any sort of 
> > innovative programming... I have plot, and I have what I consider a "bigger 
> > and better plan" than anything UO or EQ or AC have ever done... and this 
> > license is basically saying that I have to give all of THAT stuff up if I 
> > choose to use NeL as my core code?
> >
> > *scratches head*
> >

I've been speaking with Jared, and it seems he is not opposed to open
source. However, he wonders (as do I) where Nel ends and our code
begins. Does any project using nel have to release *all* of its source
code? Or just modifications to Nel itself? Modifications to Nel should
*of course* be open source. It is basically things like game logic that
Jared is concerned about.

--James Hearn