Member Discussions

I am preparing to release my codebase (formerly The Inquisition) to the public. Several of the low-lying functions of the code will be released in binary-format only, and will not be modifiable by the users. Included in this binary code will be a mechanism to confirm that the user is authorized to operate the code on a particular machine.

The code is a ROM derivative, and although it is possible that someone could recreate the low-lying codefunctions on their own, I am fairly confident that the effort required to do so would offset the potential gains (of bypassing the protection). I am looking for the wording of my licensing to include on each of the sourcefiles, and would appreciate the assistance of the community in working this out.

My intent:
o free distribution of the sourcecode is authorized.
o registration of the codebase is required with me; user(s) must include IP address of machine they will run it on
o distribution of individual functions is permitted, so long as the header of that file is included with the function (ie, the license I am soliciting your assistance in writing)
o user acknowledges that repeated unauthorized attempts to operate the codebase may result in destruction of their code

What I have so far:

/***************************************************************************
 * This code is released under the auspices of the ROM license and all     *
 * other applicable licenses to which ROM is held.  Use of any of this code*
 * either in whole or in part constitutes acceptance of this licensing.    *
 *                                                                         *
 * This code is released on a 'limited use' basis - you may do as you wish *
 * with it, so long as you register with the owners of this license by     *
 * sending an email to robbert@theinquisition.net with the IP address of   *
 * the server on which you wish to operate.  FAILURE TO REGISTER YOUR IP   *
 * ADDRESS WILL RESULT IN POTENTIAL LOSS OF YOUR SOURCEFILES!!! Use of this*
 * code constitutes acceptance of the above.                               *
 *                                                                         *
 * Distribution of this codebase is authorized; recipients of distribution *
 * are held to the same requirements as outlined in paragraph(2), above.   *
 ***************************************************************************/

Do you have any changes suggested to the above? I am not going to debate the pros or cons of attempting protection of a distribution; rather, I would be open to input regarding the nature of the license itself, with the understanding that there is protection built into the binary-only portions of the codebase.

Robbert

Does that mean you're going to compile the binary part on all the different platforms people might use it on? Otherwise the binary part won't be compatible.

The calls within the binary portion are fairly generic, and should work on all platforms. Included in the documentation with the sourcecode will be information on the steps to take if the binary does not compile on a specific platform. In those (hopefully rare) cases, I will recompile that binary portion on that specific platform and add to the codebase release (as well as mail to them), much the way Makefile.platform was implemented in previous codebase releases.

I have tried compilation on several distributions of Linux, although not on alternate platforms, with various versions of gcc, and the process works as intended. Given that the preponderance of MUD hosts run a version of Linux, I expect that the potential need for platform-specific binaries will be small.

Good point, thanks for the response.

You may want to reiterate that all of the ROM/Merc/DIKU licences still apply and include the filenames those are contained in. 'Auspice' may be too big a word :)

You should specify that any redistribution must retain the physical licences.

'Limited use' is somewhat ambiguous, too. How about:

1. Preface
   This work (define?) is provided under the terms of this licence. The work is protected by copyright and/or other applicable law. Any use of the work other than as authorized under this licence or copyright law is prohibited. This work also includes code from ROM (rom_lic.txt), DIKU (diku_lic.txt), ... By using, modifying or redistributing this code you indicate your acceptance of all of these licences and agree to be bound by them. Any breach of these licences will terminate your right to use, modify or redistribute this work immediately.


2. Use and modification
   You are free to use or modify this code in any way you want with the following conditions:
   
   
   • You must register with the owners of this license by sending an e-mail including your name and the IP-address of the machine on which you wish to operate to robbert@theinquisition.net (or ...). You may register more than one IP-address.


3. Redistribution
   You are free to redistribute this code in any way you want with the following conditions:
   
   
   • You must include this licence and the other licences as mentioned in the Preface intact and unmodified in their original files. You may not change, remove or relocate any of these licences, warranties and copyright notices.

It gets technical, doesn't it?

.

P.S. I knew you couldn't stay away from TMC forever, Robbert. Good to see you .)

Thanks, Muir. Your suggestions have been applied, with relatively few changes. Anything else?

My intent is to make the work(s) created on our game available to others, in a (relatively) stable, advanced Intensive RolePlaying engine. Although a somewhat thorough understanding of programming is required to make any significant changes to the code I will be releasing, it should be fairly easy for a user to make superficial changes to the code, enough that their MUD N is different than anothers MUD Y. Simultaneously, I do not wish to have a plethora of games spring up wherein the users simply remove all traces of the licensing and claim it as their own. It is my hope that by including some of the low-level code in solely binary form, with a mechanism to confirm validity of a particular user's game, that a happy medium can be achieved.

Now, a second question - I know it is possible to create a license and apply it retroactively to previously released, unlicensed works. Is it also possible to make licenses "durable" - that is, by explicitly stating it in the license, the licensee must follow the terms of any future licenses, rendering older ones obsolete?

As far as welcome back - for quite some time I have seen that the reason I left was no longer present (false quotations in advertising), but I have simply had no reason to make a post. Thanks for noticing my absence :)

Robb

Actually, I don't think it is possible to create a retroactive licence; the best you can do is send a cease-and-desist letter, although I can't say for sure about the validity of that, either.

You can certainly include a clause binding the user to any future licences. Two things to remember are that you'll want to be able to notify people about any new versions (or give a website to check at or whatever) and that people may be leery of such licencing, fearing the new one will be egregious, so you may want to include a clarification that you can't gain all rights to the modifications they've done before the new licence was released etc.

.

You can certainly include a clause binding the user to any future licences.

Nod, I included this in what I'm writing. This is what I meant by making the license retroactive; I should have been clearer.

Two things to remember are that you'll want to be able to notify people about any new versions (or give a website to check at or whatever)

The binary portion of the code will auto apply updates to both the code and the license, and make the user(s) aware of the changes.

and that people may be leery of such licencing, fearing the new one will be egregious, so you may want to include a clarification that you can't gain all rights to the modifications they've done before the new licence was released etc.

I certainly understand this concern, and have no real method of addressing it. I think it is equally as valid as the concern of a programmer (or group of programmers) that their efforts will not be impugned by the public, that their works will not be summarily stripped of their credits and passed off as the 'original' work of another. :)

On the other hand, there is ample legal evidence supporting that work applied to a released program cannot, and does not, become the right of the original licensor. I believe any attempt to make a license retroactively grant rights like that would be unenforceable, or at the very least would cause its releaser to be castigated from the community.

I believe it will come down to a need for mutual trust. I will trust the users who accept my license to not part-and-parcel the individual pieces out (despite it being prohibited in the licensing), and they will have to trust that I do not have malicious intents on any works they apply to my code. I will stipulate in plain terms somewhere that use of my license will not grant me authority to any works they create.

Important note: I am not a lawyer, this is my opinion, not legal advice.

The only protection you have for sure is under US copyright law (I assume you're in the US). See http://copyright.gov for details.

About licenses, you have to start thinking about this like a contract, because that's how the law does. Licenses have to emulate a contract to even be remotely enforceable. The old "By using this software, you agree to the terms..." is complete garbage and case law goes against it, actually. There has to be conscious acceptance of the contract by the other party (legal term is consideration I believe). You should have them click "I agree" and there should be something that the user gets in return for it to be considered a contract (the old quid pro quo legal thing). There is case law against software IP owners in the absence of a click-wrap agreement "Softman vs. Adobe".

Dump the retroactive future contracts stuff because it's not legal either. You'll have to re-issue the license (contract) and get agreement again when anything changes. You could refuse to re-license if they don't accept the new license, though. Also "forever" contracts are not legal, so state some kind of timeframe.

As a side note, good luck on those binaries that "phone home". Most folks are pretty hostile towards that stuff.
If you're not charging for the code, why are you going through as much trouble as a company that sells software?

About the only reasonable thing you can do is require people give you credit when using your works. In the end, what are you going to do to someone who violates your trust? Sue them and claim damages on software you gave for free? Even for you to get get statutory damages they have to violate copyright law, not your license.
















(Comment added by AdamMil on Wed Nov 17 4:55:27 2004)

I forgot to mention that even if you get all the way to court and win, you'll be lucky if the judge awards minimum ($300) statutory damages against the 13 year-old defendant in U.S. District Court (you know that's who they will be, right?).

You'll spend at least $1200 to get the ball rolling on this and it will probably run about 6 months through court, with a few 1-2 month delays thrown in for good measure. Every court delay will tack on time from your lawyer, because you'll need one since this is a federal case, not a local small-claims court deal.

Oh and you probably better have a unique serial number for each copy, because otherwise a smart defendant might claim they got a copy from someone else and then for due dilligence needed for the case, you'll have to chase down that other party(s) to confirm/deny it. Basically their tactic would be to wear you down and hopefully it would eventually become too expensive and you would decide to drop the case, since the burden of proof is all on you and there were no real monetary losses in all this.

All that is worst case scenario of course. Best case is you find a clearly indentifiable violator with an ISP that will cooperate and give you their full contact information based on IP address (yeah right), get your lawyer to throw some papers at them, which scares them into compliance/away. That will cost you $200-300 to get a lawyer to draft it. You want this because nobody cares until they see a lawyer's letterhead. You own letter would most likely be ineffective.

I think you should either sell this software full bore, or practically give it away. I just don't see any advantage to this half-way place you're going to be in, with protected binaries, licenses, and such for free code. There are other folks just giving MUD code away and only asking for credits.

As a side note, good luck on those binaries that "phone home". Most folks are pretty hostile towards that stuff.
If you're not charging for the code, why are you going through as much trouble as a company that sells software?
- AdamMil

I'm not concerned with becoming the most prolific codebase out there, so I don't really mind if people opt to use a different source rather than comply with my requirements. As I said initially, my intent is to simply provide a rather deep, broad intensive RP base for the public, since I have no intention of ever running the code myself again.

In regards to going to so much trouble: the code was relatively simple to write, and is simple to implement, using standard library calls which are a part of most industry servers. I have no trust that the general public will comply with my wishes and keep credit where credit is due, so must rely upon other means than trust.

About the only reasonable thing you can do is require people give you credit when using your works. In the end, what are you going to do to someone who violates your trust? Sue them and claim damages on software you gave for free? Even for you to get get statutory damages they have to violate copyright law, not your license.

No, I will remove their ability to operate my code in its entirety. They can certainly apply odd portions of it to another codebase, but I am fairly confident that it is not feasible to rewrite or rereference all calls that are in the binary-only portion of the code. Therefore, it is either accept my terms, or piecemeal the code, or use another codebase.

Oh and you probably better have a unique serial number for each copy, because otherwise a smart defendant might claim they got a copy from someone else and then for due dilligence needed for the case, you'll have to chase down that other party(s) to confirm/deny it. Basically their tactic would be to wear you down and hopefully it would eventually become too expensive and you would decide to drop the case, since the burden of proof is all on you and there were no real monetary losses in all this.

Unique serial numbers are an aspect of the validation pair required to boot the game up.

All that is worst case scenario of course. Best case is you find a clearly indentifiable violator with an ISP that will cooperate and give you their full contact information based on IP address (yeah right), get your lawyer to throw some papers at them, which scares them into compliance/away. That will cost you $200-300 to get a lawyer to draft it. You want this because nobody cares until they see a lawyer's letterhead. You own letter would most likely be ineffective.

You're making the assumption that I am going to resort to legal means to enforce theft of my code. This is what my solution is intended to avoid. By requiring compliance to specific criteria (which this post was an attempt to solicit assistance in designing), and enforcing it with a relatively ambiguous application of low-level functions in binary-only format, which is capable of updating and regulating itself, it is not necessary to involve the courts.

I think you should either sell this software full bore, or practically give it away. I just don't see any advantage to this half-way place you're going to be in, with protected binaries, licenses, and such for free code. There are other folks just giving MUD code away and only asking for credits.

As I said initially, I am not soliciting opinions on the feasibility of the concept; I know the scope of my intentions and am quite confident that it is both possible and innocuous enough that it will be accepted by those who are wanting to use my code. It is a derivative of ROM, and therefore also of Merc and Diku, and cannot be sold without violating their licenses (nor would I, regardless of the licensing; it is the product of 5 years of work, and certainly not industry-grade standard).

Again, I am not looking for my release to soar to the forefront of the MUDding industry as the de facto standard for MUD development. Rather, I expect that a very small niche of users will arise, and (hopefully) interact with one another in attempts to resolve the (undoubtedly numerous) bugs which exist within the code.

This is not a codebase with a series of small, innocuous changes that were applied; rather, it consists of many unique, deep additions to and some total rewrites of original code. There will be many real benefits to utilizing it in lieu of a standard ROM or other codebase, for those who wish to create an immersive roleplaying environment, and it is for that reason that I am releasing it.

Are there any further insights into the licensing concept for a derivative game that can be provided me?

A. Typically in cases like this, the defendant has to pay the plantiff`s legal fees.

B. It`s the principle of the thing, not the money.

C. He can`t sell the code if he used Diku/Smaug/Circlemud/anything that says "Cannot make profit"

And ROM I believe has a "Cannot make profit" clause.

To resolve confusion should this be read in the future:

On 6 March 2005, the license was modified to remove the mandate of binary-only file inclusion in the sourcecode. Although the concept worked, it caused compilation problems the more distant the source grew from the precompiled binary, resulting in odd crashes and unusable backtraces.

The entirety of the license can be viewed at http://license.theinquisition.net

Thanks to all who provided input to my initial solicitations.

Merry Christmas to all!

Good learning experience?

Yes, thank you, it was. I had actually thought all aspects were considered when I began the process, and ultimately learned quite a bit from the entire (ordeal seems to fit but connotes that it was a trial, which it wasn't). It was actually through positive communication processes with those involved in using the licensed software that we were able to discover the root of the problem, and from there work towards a viable solution.

I'm certain that a brilliant solution which kept my original intent intact could have been achieved, but equally as convinced that doing so would have required substnatially more time and energy than I and the licensors were willing to invest.