Actually, It's already in use, or at least projects to use it are in the works. One mentioned recently on GameSpot (with a/. mention)is an open-source game with a Linux cient. IMHO, This game's possibilities, however, to those of WorldForge. Everything is open source (GPL I believe), clients and servers. It's still very much a work in progress, but they're gearing for a semi-playable demo release (they had a barely-useable demo release a while back).
They're trying for clients and servers for Linux, Windows and Mac platforms. The clients under develoment include text-based, 2d isometric and 3d rendered. The server side has some impressive work being done for AI and A-life. Not all clients need to be identical because the core of the project is a standardized protocol, called Atlas, for transmitting information and actions. Any client that is fully Atlas-compliant will be able to work with a WorldForge server, no matter how its inner working or interface are designed. Being open source, they know people will try to hack their clients, so intead of "hack-proofing" them, they simply designed the client-server model such that the client isn't trusted with anything it shouldn't be. Weenies won't be able to cheat with their clients because all the stuff they'd be able to cheat with it handled on the server. Even scripting your character's actions in no problem; in fact, the WF guys think it would be cool if you can do a decent job of it , because it keeps your character in the action even when you're not behind the wheel.
When it's completed, anyone with a machine and connection suited for their intended user base will be able to set up a server with the rules modules and world design they want to use. They can set it up for free access for anyone like modern MUDs, or if their game is good enough for it, charge for access like EverQuest or Ultima Online. Everything specific to the game itself is kept modular, so you can use whatever game rules you want, or write your own (I think they're using Python for scripting); the same goes for the world, i.e. map data and character/creature art. They have two primary games in different stages of development, one fantasy and one science fiction. At least one of the clients is skinnable, with a fantasy and sci-fi skin included.
Personally, I can barely wait until I can actually play it. It's gonna be pretty freakin' cool.
The whole GPL vs. BSD conflict reminds me of other conflicts between groups that see themselves as polar opposites without realizing the overwhelming similarities between them, especially when the "leaders" of the two camps get along fine. In Rap we have East Coast vs. West Coast; in X desktops we have KDE vs. GNOME; and in free unices, possibly predating the previous examples, we have GNU vs. BSD. And sometimes, like now, it just gets ridiculous. (I almost want to sell it to USA Network as a 70's-style action series, "GvsB".[1]) If the GPL and BSDL seem radically different, compare them to the MS EULA.
On a more serious note, I'm having a flashback to my intro to philosophy class at college. There was one industrial-revolution-era(?) political philosopher (whose name I can't remember [2]) who advocated pure democracy. For any issue, the populace votes and simple majority rules. He said that such a system was the only way to ensure freedom. But what about the people in the minority? According to him, they would be forced to abide by the majority's decision; as he put it, they would be "forced to be free". Now maybe I missed something, but to me it seems that you can't force freedom on anything or anyone, any more than you can fight for peace or fuck for virginity.
I'm still not entirely decided on the OS license issue, personally; sometimes the GPL makes me feel like I'm being "forced to be free". In general, the LGPL makes me feel more comfortable. Sometimes I think that Sun's Community Source License is the closest we've come to The Perfect Open Source License: Do what you want with it if you're not charging for it, but if you do just pay the copyright holder(s) a royalty. OS code that you can make from money directly.
But ya know what? I'm not forced to be anything, because I can do whatever the hell I want with my own code. If I want to hack GPL'd code and I feel unfairly bound by the license, what the hell right do I have to complain? The writer could just as easily have used the MS EULA. I should be grateful I'm allowed to hack it at all, especially if it's the kind of product he could have made proprietary and gotten rich from. And if I think it's just horrible that MS can use BSD code and not OS-license the product, again, what the hell right, yada yada yada? It's not my code, it's UC Berkeley's code, and if they want people to be able to do that with it, it's their right to let them. And if I want to use the Sun CSL so I can release my source code for free use but get a piece the action if it's used commercially, I have that right.
Now THAT'S my idea of free software.
[1] Just in case some people missed it, "GvsB" was intended to lighten the mood of this whole debate and hopefully get some of the agrier people of both sides to chill the fsck out. And if it seems like I'm belittling the debate and don't appreciate how important an issue this is, you're right.
[2] If anyone knows the name of the guy I'm talking about, and wants to inform us all of his identity and any errors or oversimplifications I may have inandvertantly made due to the class being a few years in the past, please do so.
I was thinking about OSS licenses after reading the "Restrictively Unrestrictive" article. The mother of a friend of mine is a published SF/fantasy author; some other friends of hers include a band on an indy label. As a result, I've picked up some stories here and there about the troubles artists sometimes have trying to get artistic integrity and a decent paycheck to coexist.
When these two topic threads collided in my brain, the idea that sprung forth was this: Essentially the FreeBSD license, but with an extra clause stating that if someone wants to incorporate part of the licensed code into a product to be sold for money, they need the programmer's permission to do so. The programmer reserves the rights under the license to negotiate conditions for the codes use: if he likes the company and feels charitable, he can just tell them to go on and do it; if he has ethical problems with the company or what they might do with the code, he could flat out refuse; or for various points between, he could negotiate payment for the code, either as a flat fee or a royalty (knowing more about the lit. and music business than the software business, I have no idea if the royalty thing would ever happen).
Also, it should be clearly stated that previous arrangements for commercial distribution IN NO WAY set a precedent for future agreements (this would hopefully protect the programmer when he tells WeSaySo Inc. that he wants sagans of dollars for his code, and they yell and scream about how he let Applix use it all for just a free commecial-use license).
Thoughts, anyone? Do I have a good idea here, or should I just lay off the crack?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, It's already in use, or at least projects to use it are in the works. One mentioned recently on GameSpot (with a /. mention)is an open-source game with a Linux cient. IMHO, This game's possibilities, however, to those of WorldForge. Everything is open source (GPL I believe), clients and servers. It's still very much a work in progress, but they're gearing for a semi-playable demo release (they had a barely-useable demo release a while back).
They're trying for clients and servers for Linux, Windows and Mac platforms. The clients under develoment include text-based, 2d isometric and 3d rendered. The server side has some impressive work being done for AI and A-life. Not all clients need to be identical because the core of the project is a standardized protocol, called Atlas, for transmitting information and actions. Any client that is fully Atlas-compliant will be able to work with a WorldForge server, no matter how its inner working or interface are designed. Being open source, they know people will try to hack their clients, so intead of "hack-proofing" them, they simply designed the client-server model such that the client isn't trusted with anything it shouldn't be. Weenies won't be able to cheat with their clients because all the stuff they'd be able to cheat with it handled on the server. Even scripting your character's actions in no problem; in fact, the WF guys think it would be cool if you can do a decent job of it , because it keeps your character in the action even when you're not behind the wheel.
When it's completed, anyone with a machine and connection suited for their intended user base will be able to set up a server with the rules modules and world design they want to use. They can set it up for free access for anyone like modern MUDs, or if their game is good enough for it, charge for access like EverQuest or Ultima Online. Everything specific to the game itself is kept modular, so you can use whatever game rules you want, or write your own (I think they're using Python for scripting); the same goes for the world, i.e. map data and character/creature art. They have two primary games in different stages of development, one fantasy and one science fiction. At least one of the clients is skinnable, with a fantasy and sci-fi skin included.
Personally, I can barely wait until I can actually play it. It's gonna be pretty freakin' cool.
The whole GPL vs. BSD conflict reminds me of other conflicts between groups that see themselves as polar opposites without realizing the overwhelming similarities between them, especially when the "leaders" of the two camps get along fine. In Rap we have East Coast vs. West Coast; in X desktops we have KDE vs. GNOME; and in free unices, possibly predating the previous examples, we have GNU vs. BSD. And sometimes, like now, it just gets ridiculous. (I almost want to sell it to USA Network as a 70's-style action series, "GvsB".[1]) If the GPL and BSDL seem radically different, compare them to the MS EULA.
On a more serious note, I'm having a flashback to my intro to philosophy class at college. There was one industrial-revolution-era(?) political philosopher (whose name I can't remember [2]) who advocated pure democracy. For any issue, the populace votes and simple majority rules. He said that such a system was the only way to ensure freedom. But what about the people in the minority? According to him, they would be forced to abide by the majority's decision; as he put it, they would be "forced to be free". Now maybe I missed something, but to me it seems that you can't force freedom on anything or anyone, any more than you can fight for peace or fuck for virginity.
I'm still not entirely decided on the OS license issue, personally; sometimes the GPL makes me feel like I'm being "forced to be free". In general, the LGPL makes me feel more comfortable. Sometimes I think that Sun's Community Source License is the closest we've come to The Perfect Open Source License: Do what you want with it if you're not charging for it, but if you do just pay the copyright holder(s) a royalty. OS code that you can make from money directly.
But ya know what? I'm not forced to be anything, because I can do whatever the hell I want with my own code. If I want to hack GPL'd code and I feel unfairly bound by the license, what the hell right do I have to complain? The writer could just as easily have used the MS EULA. I should be grateful I'm allowed to hack it at all, especially if it's the kind of product he could have made proprietary and gotten rich from. And if I think it's just horrible that MS can use BSD code and not OS-license the product, again, what the hell right, yada yada yada? It's not my code, it's UC Berkeley's code, and if they want people to be able to do that with it, it's their right to let them. And if I want to use the Sun CSL so I can release my source code for free use but get a piece the action if it's used commercially, I have that right.
Now THAT'S my idea of free software.
[1] Just in case some people missed it, "GvsB" was intended to lighten the mood of this whole debate and hopefully get some of the agrier people of both sides to chill the fsck out. And if it seems like I'm belittling the debate and don't appreciate how important an issue this is, you're right.
[2] If anyone knows the name of the guy I'm talking about, and wants to inform us all of his identity and any errors or oversimplifications I may have inandvertantly made due to the class being a few years in the past, please do so.
I was thinking about OSS licenses after reading the "Restrictively Unrestrictive" article. The mother of a friend of mine is a published SF/fantasy author; some other friends of hers include a band on an indy label. As a result, I've picked up some stories here and there about the troubles artists sometimes have trying to get artistic integrity and a decent paycheck to coexist.
When these two topic threads collided in my brain, the idea that sprung forth was this: Essentially the FreeBSD license, but with an extra clause stating that if someone wants to incorporate part of the licensed code into a product to be sold for money, they need the programmer's permission to do so. The programmer reserves the rights under the license to negotiate conditions for the codes use: if he likes the company and feels charitable, he can just tell them to go on and do it; if he has ethical problems with the company or what they might do with the code, he could flat out refuse; or for various points between, he could negotiate payment for the code, either as a flat fee or a royalty (knowing more about the lit. and music business than the software business, I have no idea if the royalty thing would ever happen).
Also, it should be clearly stated that previous arrangements for commercial distribution IN NO WAY set a precedent for future agreements (this would hopefully protect the programmer when he tells WeSaySo Inc. that he wants sagans of dollars for his code, and they yell and scream about how he let Applix use it all for just a free commecial-use license).
Thoughts, anyone? Do I have a good idea here, or should I just lay off the crack?