|
I have started with a blank piece of paper (well actually, a public domain outline of socket drivers). The whole mechanics of the new mud behind the scenes is completely different. In fact, in Aardwolf as it is today that is already true, but as it is today is does still have some pieces of Diku code in it and clearly a derivative.
However, the end result is going to look a lot like Aardwolf does today and, taking the article KaVir posted literally, nothing can ever change the fact that I have seen the Diku source code. Now we're getting into a whole new area - if implementing a feature you see on another MUD into your own code is a breach of copyright then a heck of a lot of muds have a good case against a heck of a lot of other muds.
Where do you draw the line? Diku has prompts, Aardwolf will have prompts. Diku uses sockets to connect to the MUD, Aardwolf will use sockets to connect to the mud. Diku has a skill called 'kick', Aardwolf will have a skill called 'kick' - however differently they are implemented, they will even both do damage!
I would imagine there are very few custom MUDs out there where the authors have never seen the diku source code. Some of them actually used to be Diku and still look a heck of a lot like Diku. Some of them aren't too far behind us in the polls either. Are they also piecemeal derivatives?
The comparison to converting a book to another language is a good one, and would apply if I were doing an exact mapping of Diku to Java and claming it was original. What we are doing is more a case of reading Tolkien's works and going and writing any of the dozens of other sets of fantasy novels that are essentially the same story but 'implemented differently'.
It is clear that no matter what we do this debate will continue and we are doomed to become the 'next Medievia' with or without a genuine effort to start over with a fresh codebase, which is not just for licensing reasons btw, there are many good technical reasons to do so. I will forge ahead with the new code regardless.
|