It is a long story indeed, the short version as I understand it is that there was an argument ofer the afkmud license before it was changed a few weeks ago.
I personally wish someone could explain why something freely available to be copyed and modified should come with so many stipulations.
I hear microsoft is pushing for a bill that says that once a license agreement is accepted its perfectly legal for the author to scan your harddrive looking for certain files and in some cases spy on the user.
The skype license for instance seems to be half the size of a bible.
I genuinely was interested in the license but it had so many explanations for non technical users as to what this and that means that by the time I got to the license I didn't care to read the rest.
I apreciate Samson's great work, and wish Tich and others would keep his acomplishments in mind before talking smack.
I personally think proprietary code is bad and believe in free software as defined on the gnu linux website.
Unlike some people I know, my copy of windows is legal, I buy registration codes for games online.
The point I am triing to make is that I don't have a problem with developers making money by selling software licenses.
I do think it odd that dicoo darivitives have such a questionable license people have debated ever since it was released.
I also understand that the email addresses are no longer correct, wouldn't that make the license invalid as it makes it impossible to follow the tirms of the license?
I think it requires you email them letting them know your running a dicoo based mud and give them its name and address.
Anyway, sorry for ranting, I just really want someone to help me gain a greater appreciation for licenses in general.
I do not mean to disrespect anyone here in any way, I just need a better understanding as to why I should care about licenses (especially for open source software).
Thank you all for your time.