Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×
GNU is Not Unix

Journal FortKnox's Journal: GPL Violations? 9

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...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GPL Violations?

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
  • I used to work on a CircleMUD.

    Here's a copy of the Diku license: []

    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.

"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." -- Artemus Ward aka Charles Farrar Brown