[ShadowsDawn]

Yes linux is free, but how many commercial releases of it do we see? Can anyone say SuSE.. RedHat...? Both of these either still produce or used to produce 'commercial' versions of their linux bundles. There are other commercial distros, but those are the ones that come to me off the top of my head, as I have had those.. actually have the first commercial release of linux that RedHat ever made.. ahh the headaches that thing caused. Wine is a freely available program, yet there are commercial version of it that have been specialized to handle certain things (Cedega.. Crossover Office). Should any of these be looked down on? No, far from it. They have worked hard to make Wine more useful for certain situations, and sometimes have even gotten licenses to the things they have added into the code (thus meaning they can't release those portions).

Open Source does not mean the software is free. Open Source is about providing the source code for the software freely. Now, by that I mean if you get the program (whether the program is free or you pay for it) you then should have access to the source code, if it is not already bundled with it. Yes a lot of Open Source programs are free, but a program that costs money can still be open source software. Open Source is about providing people with access to be able to see how the program they just got works, or even be able to make alterations to customize it to their specific needs, fixing bugs and the like, hopefully passing bug fixes up to the creators, and even redistributing their version of it. Open Source and the Free Software Foundation (which is slightly different fom Open Source) have nothing to do with the programs being free.

Diku is not Free software. It's not even really and truly Open Source. Yes, it costs you nothing to use, or even publish a game with it. But in order for a piece of software to be Free or truly Open Source, you have to have the freedom to do with it whatever you wish (pretty much don't break the law), including being able to sell your version of the modified software if you chose. Linux, on the other hand *is* Free and Open Source software since companies can take it, create their own distro using other Free or Open Source software, and turn around and sell the thing after they have it packaged how they want.

As for MUDs who are 'commercial'... You yourself have said that you do not mind paying a game developer for their hard work. Are MUD developers not game developers? Do they not put a lot of hard work and love into their projects? There is nothing wrong with those who put in the work to build their game from the ground up (or using a piece of Free software as a base) to seek a bit of payment for the game they have developed for others to play.

There are three groups that I can think offhand of that create pay-to-play MUDs. Play.net with their round of game, Iron Realms with theirs, and Frogdice (Creators of Threshold and soon Primordiax). Do I agree with everything these groups do for their games, nope. Do I think that they take advantage of the mudding community... only ones I can say yes to without a doubt there, is Play.net. $15/mo is a steep price for a text based game. However, I respect their right to do so. Gemstone has a long history, and as far as I know it has always been a commercial project.

Iron Realms.. I find their games to be quite well made, and I do enjoy firing up Lusternia or Aetolia and having my fun for a little while. I do not fault them for seeking to make some money off the games. As far as their payment method goes, yes the game is 'free to play', and you can get credits in game. However, you do need credits to be able to advance your character very far in the skill trees, and getting them through the in game credit market.. you'd need to spend hundreds of hours getting the gold to buy the credits to get your skills to high levels.

Frogdice, Threshold specifically, yup, that has been my 'home' MUD for years. There are some things I don't like about the game (mainly would love it to be more viable to advance characters without having to go out and kill stuff), but it is still well made. Granted there has been a lot of debate in the past about the game and it being a commercial game, and I'm not interested in getting into that discussion. My point is, the game has been well made, and the roleplaying in it is better than any other commercial game I have seen yet. I do feel that some of the 'perks' you can purchase should be available to all characters, but hey, that is their choice on how to handle it.

In short, charging money to play a MUD is not taking advantage of anyone. It is not going against the notion of Open Source or Free Software. Also, most MUD code bases do not fall under actual Free or Open Software. Cost may be free.. but they are not Free or Open.

Edit: Note about the games I mentioned that are commercial, and I mentioned things I didn't particularly like, they are just my personal opinions. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the game or the method they choose to make money. How they handle it is their choice, and right. If I don't like it, it is my choice whether or not I play there or give them my money. That right there is actually one incentive that commercial MUDs have to create a well made and entertaining game, if players don't like it, it's too buggy, or what ahve you, those players can easily take their money elsewhere.