massiv-devel Mailing List for Massively multiplayer game middleware

Yup. There are some problems associated with GFDL under the most strict 
interpretation of the terms. Will study further. Damn lawyers. ;)

My primary concern with BSD is that it's harder to grow a community 
around open source. There are two objectives when I ask Massiv to be 
changed to LGPL. First, we could use it in a commercial product! Thanks 
guys!

Second, to grow a community of developers around it. Open Source is 
gaining momentum in gaming, especially in the component and middleware 
level. Open Source game logic/art works are of different issues. One of 
the most important aspect of open source project is the community of 
developers. BSD doesn't promote sharing and it hard to grow a community 
if nobody shares. It allows commercial developers to take the codes and 
make a proprietary version of it. As a commercial vendor, I'd like 
that. However, the boarder problems for our future is that our studio 
is relatively small and small organizations depends heavily on 
individuals. We have 4 programmers working on middleware right now and 
anyone of them left would cause problem for our development. It's a 
fact of life with proprietary software development, especially with 
non-standard driven system like Massiv. If this is CORBA or J2EE, I 
won't worry that much. Be able to grow a community of users help to 
solve this problem. The members of the community can share the solution 
to similar problems encountered and there are always options to hire 
good contributors to the system.

Also, with multiple commercial parties sharing, it helps to ensure the 
development of the project and build sustainable open source software. 
One key problem with the adaption of open source project by commercial 
vendors isn't really the cost but the maintainability. JBoss would be 
more expensive the WebLogic is the users have to maintain the 
development themselves. Commerical interests and sharing are base for 
sustainable open source project.

Also, looking at the economy of middleware. Commercial vendor for game 
middleware layer typically charge about 4% ~ 6% of revenue for 
licensing their software in source form. Having Massiv in BSD to 
develop a commercial version around it would cost more then licensing a 
commercial version. LGPL help to grow a community so the development 
and maintenance can be amortized across the developers, especially 
those used it in commercial apps.

Maybe I am thinking too much. However, I think either way, you'd like 
to see Massiv to be used in more places and we'd like to have a good 
based to bootstrap our game development. I am don't think BSD could 
work because of the above reasons.

David

>> On the other hand, GFDL has been defined in terms of documentation and
>> has clearly define the derivative works for documents. I think it's a
>> better license to be applied to documentation.
>
> Unfortunately many people do not like GFDL, for example it seems not 
> to be
> compatible with Debian defintion of "free 
> software/documentation/anything".
> Here are links to some interesting articles about these problems:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
> http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
>
> Unfortunately, I don't know anything about documentation licenses, so 
> I'm
> unable to decide which one to choose right now.
>
> Personally, I think that licensing everything under BSD license would 
> be ok.
>
> -- Stepan Vondrak

On Saturday 25 of September 2004 09:21, David Li wrote:

> On the other hand, GFDL has been defined in terms of documentation and
> has clearly define the derivative works for documents. I think it's a
> better license to be applied to documentation.

Unfortunately many people do not like GFDL, for example it seems not to be 
compatible with Debian defintion of "free software/documentation/anything". 
Here are links to some interesting articles about these problems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about documentation licenses, so I'm 
unable to decide which one to choose right now.

Personally, I think that licensing everything under BSD license would be ok.

-- Stepan Vondrak

>>    Just realize that there is no discussion on the license for Massiv
>> document. We are looking to maintain it as well as have it translated
>> into Chinese and Japanese.
>
> What do you mean by document? The content in the massiv/doc directory? 
> There
> is a file massiv/doc/COPYING that contains the current license. As I
> understand it, the license should apply to the whole CVS repository 
> (sources
> & documentation). If it was not stated explicitly, please update it.

Using LGPL for documentation is kind of strange for the following 
reasons:

1. The terms of LGPL define the "derivative works" in term of a 
software program instead of documentation. This makes it ambiguous on 
the term of the derived works such as modification and new addition to 
the documents. After all, it's hard to define whether a new chapter is 
"static linked" or "dynamic linked" to the original. ;)

2. LGPL doesn't specify how to deal with the translation of the 
document into another language. In terms of a computer programs, if 
Massiv is rewritten completely in Java, the Java programs would not 
have to follow the copyright of the C++ version under LGPL. This may 
cause ambiguity when doing translation of Massiv document into say 
Chinese.

On the other hand, GFDL has been defined in terms of documentation and 
has clearly define the derivative works for documents. I think it's a 
better license to be applied to documentation.

---

I hope all these legal discussion doesn't bother anyone on the mailing 
list. It's in my view that it's best to have a clear license terms for 
an open source program before the project itself can be grown properly. 
Need to get these tedious stuffs out of the way before getting into the 
fun technical stuffs. ;)

David

>    Just realize that there is no discussion on the license for Massiv
> document. We are looking to maintain it as well as have it translated
> into Chinese and Japanese.

What do you mean by document? The content in the massiv/doc directory? There
is a file massiv/doc/COPYING that contains the current license. As I
understand it, the license should apply to the whole CVS repository (sources
& documentation). If it was not stated explicitly, please update it.

-- Markoid

>    Will try to separate out the other codes in the demo. For those fit
> into a library, will move them to LGPL and put the rest under BSD. What
> do you think of this approach?

I think that the Demo should be considered as a simple reference application
only and do not know if it is good to extend it to a full MMO game. If you
won't use anything from the Demo LGPL might be okay for you.

> 2. Move the project (home page, source and others) to ObjectWeb forge

What will happen to the source repository on SourceForge?

> 3. Set up redirection in the Sourceforge home page to ObjectWeb home
> page.

Please note that the current web content is generated from php sources
located at doc/www at the CVS repository. If you are going to make any
changes and do not plan to create new content from scratch, update doc/www
sources.

> If possible, please add me 'taweili' to the Sourceforge developer list
> so I can handle all the migration from here.

Will do.
-- Markoid

Hi,

   Just realize that there is no discussion on the license for Massiv 
document. We are looking to maintain it as well as have it translated 
into Chinese and Japanese. We would need two things:

1. A license to be applied to the document. GNU Free Documentation 
License is recommended.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

2. A letter from the copyright holders to permit the translation work 
to start.

Thanks.

David Li

Hi,

   Thanks everyone's support for moving Massiv to a new license. From a 
pure commercial point of view, I think BSD makes much sense. However, I 
do believe LGPL would be better for Massiv's future as an open source 
middleware. It's harder to build an open source community around BSD.

   Will try to separate out the other codes in the demo. For those fit 
into a library, will move them to LGPL and put the rest under BSD. What 
do you think of this approach?

   We will do the following as we are moving the whole Massiv project to 
ObjectWeb forge.

1. Look through the source codes and change the license to LGPL/BSD.

2. Move the project (home page, source and others) to ObjectWeb forge

3. Set up redirection in the Sourceforge home page to ObjectWeb home 
page.

If possible, please add me 'taweili' to the Sourceforge developer list 
so I can handle all the migration from here.

Again, thanks to everyone for the support. We look forward to using 
Massiv in our project.

David Li

Klidne tu licenci zmente.

Haf

Marek Vondrak wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> This message is directed to the original developers who own rights to portions of the source codes:
> Boovie
> Haf
> Marekus
> Markoid
> Octa
> Stoupik
> 
> As you probably now we are currently working on resurrecting the project and intend to change the license. Please could you declare you official stance to the license change? Plain e-mail containing "I agree to the license change to LGPL/BSD" or "I disaffirm the license change" should be sufficient.
> 
> Thank you.
> -- Markoid

> Tak tedka uz jenom nekde dohnat Hafa. Vi nekdo jak na nej. Ma na nej nekdo
> pripadne mobil, aby se to popostrcilo?

Poslal jsem mu SMS, takze uvidime.
-- Markoid

On Thursday 16 of September 2004 08:23, Marek Vondrak wrote:

> >    I think we need a email from every developer to give her/his
> > consensus on changing the license to LGPL.
>
> OK. I will take care of this. Are you sure that BSD license would not be
> better to fit your needs? When we known what the new license would be would
> we have to ask SourceForge admins to aproove the change? When the license
> is changed license notices embedded at the beginning of each source file
> would have to be either changed or dumped. Will you do any of these steps?

Personally I would prefer BSD or BSD-style license to LGPL, there are some 
issues with static linking of LGPL libraries. While Massiv core itself can be 
built and linked as DLL/.so, there are lot of useful classes and functions in 
the demo code, which must be currently linked statically.

For example, this part might be a problem for you (copied verbatim from LGPL 
2.1):
  For  example,  if you distribute copies of the library, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the  rights
that  we gave you.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or
can get the source code.  If you link other  code  with  the  li-
brary,  you must provide complete object files to the recipients,
so that they can  relink  them  with  the  library  after  making
changes  to  the  library  and recompiling it.  And you must show
them these terms so they know their rights.


-- Stoupik

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Marek Vondrak wrote:

> This message is directed to the original developers who own rights to portions of the source codes:
> Boovie
> Haf
> Marekus
> Markoid
> Octa
> Stoupik
>
> As you probably now we are currently working on resurrecting the project and intend to change the license. Please could you declare you official stance to the license change? Plain e-mail containing "I agree to the license change to LGPL/BSD" or "I disaffirm the license change" should be sufficient.

I agree to license all my contribution to project Massiv under both LGPL
and BSD license.

Petr Tovarys
(boovie)

On Thursday 16 of September 2004 10:57, Marek Vondrak wrote:

> I agree to license all my contribution to project Massiv under both LGPL
> and BSD licenses.
>
> Marek Vondrak
> (Markoid)

Tak tedka uz jenom nekde dohnat Hafa. Vi nekdo jak na nej. Ma na nej nekdo 
pripadne mobil, aby se to popostrcilo?

Boovieho jdu zpracovat rucne ted hned.

-- Sipak

>As you probably now we are currently working on resurrecting the project
>and intend to change the license. Please could you declare you official
stance
>to the license change? Plain e-mail containing "I agree to the license
change
>to LGPL/BSD" or "I disaffirm the license change" should be sufficient.

I agree to license all my contribution to project Massiv under both LGPL and
BSD licenses.

Marek Vondrak
(Markoid)

Hi,
I agree,
you may feel free to change the Massiv license to LGPL or BSD.

Octa


MV> Hi.
MV>  
MV> This message is directed to the original developers who own
MV> rights to portions of the source codes:
MV> Boovie
MV> Haf
MV> Marekus
MV> Markoid
MV> Octa
MV> Stoupik
MV>  
MV> As you probably now we are currently working on resurrecting
MV> the project and intend to change the license. Please could you
MV> declare you official stance to the license change? Plain e-mail
MV> containing "I agree to the license change to LGPL/BSD" or
MV> "I disaffirm the license change" should be sufficient.
MV>  
MV> Thank you.
MV> -- Markoid

Hi,
I have no objections to the Massiv licence being changed to either LGPL or BSD.
Marek

Marek Vondrak wrote:
> Hi.
>  
> This message is directed to the original developers who own rights to 
> portions of the source codes:
> Boovie
> Haf
> Marekus
> Markoid
> Octa
> Stoupik
>  
> As you probably now we are currently working on resurrecting the project 
> and intend to change the license. Please could you declare you official 
> stance to the license change? Plain e-mail containing "I agree to the 
> license change to LGPL/BSD" or "I disaffirm the license change" should 
> be sufficient.
>  
> Thank you.
> -- Markoid

On Thursday 16 of September 2004 08:58, Marek Vondrak wrote:

> This message is directed to the original developers who own rights to
> portions of the source codes: Boovie
> Haf
> Marekus
> Markoid
> Octa
> Stoupik
>
> As you probably now we are currently working on resurrecting the project
> and intend to change the license. Please could you declare you official
> stance to the license change? Plain e-mail containing "I agree to the
> license change to LGPL/BSD" or "I disaffirm the license change" should be
> sufficient.

I agree to license all my contribution to project Massiv under both LGPL and 
BSD license.

Stepan Vondrak
(Stoupik)

Hi.

This message is directed to the original developers who own rights to =
portions of the source codes:
Boovie
Haf
Marekus
Markoid
Octa
Stoupik

As you probably now we are currently working on resurrecting the project =
and intend to change the license. Please could you declare you official =
stance to the license change? Plain e-mail containing "I agree to the =
license change to LGPL/BSD" or "I disaffirm the license change" should =
be sufficient.

Thank you.
-- Markoid

>    Do you mind if I go registering massiv project on ObjectWeb forge and
> get thing ready to move over to ObjectWeb?

I would not mind. Do you plan to move the sources to ObjectWeb as well?

>    I think we need a email from every developer to give her/his
> consensus on changing the license to LGPL.

OK. I will take care of this. Are you sure that BSD license would not be
better to fit your needs? When we known what the new license would be would
we have to ask SourceForge admins to aproove the change? When the license is
changed license notices embedded at the beginning of each source file would
have to be either changed or dumped. Will you do any of these steps?

-- Marek

Hi,

   Do you mind if I go registering massiv project on ObjectWeb forge and  
get thing ready to move over to ObjectWeb?

   I think we need a email from every developer to give her/his  
consensus on changing the license to LGPL.

   Thanks.

David

On Sep 13, 2004, at 7:34 PM, Marek Vondrak wrote:

>
> Hi.
>
> We are happy that you are interested in the Massiv project and are  
> sorry to
> have you let waiting for the reply so long. There were some problems
> contacting other members of the original team that were resolved at  
> last. We
> have had a talk about your offer over the past weekend and got to a  
> final
> agreeement. Unfortunatelly we must warn you that some features that are
> required to make Massiv ready for production use are still missing and  
> would
> require non-trivial changes/improvements of the core library. These are
> mainly network fault-tolerance and administration & maintenance  
> utilities
> (see
> our TODO list,
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/massiv/massiv/doc/TODO? 
> rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup).
> It is also important to point at some specifics of the Massiv  
> architecture
> where servers are not assumed to be located on a LAN. In a LAN-based
> middleware some of the features would either be implemented differently
> (and easily) or even not at all. We highly recommend consulting the
> Presentation and reading the Programmer's Guide thoroughly prior trying
> to do anything with the Massiv.
>
>> I'd like to ask if it's possible to move Massiv to LGPL license.
>
> Yes. We do not have any plans on improving the Massiv and are ready to
> change the license in order to meet potential contractor's needs for  
> free.
> The
> license can be certainly changed to LGPL and possibly to a BSD-like  
> license.
> The latter will be required unless you are willing to contribute all  
> changes
> to the Massiv core back under LGPL.
>
>> Come to think about it, it would be great to move Massiv to  
>> ObjectWeb's
> forge
>> from Sourceforge.
>
> That would be great. How much work would it involve? I thought about  
> leaving
> the sources on the sourceforge and either the main website would move  
> to the
> ObjectWeb's forge or there would be a redirection from OW to SF. What  
> do you
> think?
>
>> First, if Massiv does move to LGPL license and we start to build MMO  
>> on
>> top, I could designate some engineering resource into the maintenance
>> and improvement of Massiv. Moreover, most of the graphics engines we
>> are evaluating right now are open source engines under LGPL or other
>> open source license. If we could use Massiv, I think we could produce  
>> a
>> end-to-end middleware for MMO development.
>
> That sounds promising.
>
>> Second, since Massiv is almost a three years project, are there any
>> papers published on the system? If so, where can I find the paper?
>
> Yes. See the download section on our website, massiv SF downloads
> (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=16201), the
> Programmer's Guide
> (http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/massiv/massiv_programmers_guide 
> -1.1.pdf?
> download)
> and massiv/doc directory on the CVS.
>
>> Third, where are the original development team now? Would any one of
>> them be interested in joining MMO development studio? ;)
>
> The original team members are unfortunatelly very busy and do not have  
> the
> sufficient time/interest in improving the project. However I am ready  
> to
> give
> you hints, help understanding the core and answer to technical  
> questions on
> the library internals if the project will be resurrected.
>
> Thanks.
> -- Marek
>
>

Hi,

   Thank you very much for the reply. It's great to hear this from you.  
I have taken a look at the TODO list and that's something we could work  
on. In fact, we are working on a P2P network layer that could  
complement this. The layer will also be released under LGPL when it's  
done.

   As for moving for ObjectWeb forge, I can start the process by  
submitting a project description and we will do the necessary works to  
move it from the sourceforge to ObjectWeb's forge.

   Again, thank you very much and we look forward to build a very  
interesting MMO using Massiv as a backend.

David

On Sep 13, 2004, at 7:34 PM, Marek Vondrak wrote:

>
> Hi.
>
> We are happy that you are interested in the Massiv project and are  
> sorry to
> have you let waiting for the reply so long. There were some problems
> contacting other members of the original team that were resolved at  
> last. We
> have had a talk about your offer over the past weekend and got to a  
> final
> agreeement. Unfortunatelly we must warn you that some features that are
> required to make Massiv ready for production use are still missing and  
> would
> require non-trivial changes/improvements of the core library. These are
> mainly network fault-tolerance and administration & maintenance  
> utilities
> (see
> our TODO list,
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/massiv/massiv/doc/TODO? 
> rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup).
> It is also important to point at some specifics of the Massiv  
> architecture
> where servers are not assumed to be located on a LAN. In a LAN-based
> middleware some of the features would either be implemented differently
> (and easily) or even not at all. We highly recommend consulting the
> Presentation and reading the Programmer's Guide thoroughly prior trying
> to do anything with the Massiv.
>
>> I'd like to ask if it's possible to move Massiv to LGPL license.
>
> Yes. We do not have any plans on improving the Massiv and are ready to
> change the license in order to meet potential contractor's needs for  
> free.
> The
> license can be certainly changed to LGPL and possibly to a BSD-like  
> license.
> The latter will be required unless you are willing to contribute all  
> changes
> to the Massiv core back under LGPL.
>
>> Come to think about it, it would be great to move Massiv to  
>> ObjectWeb's
> forge
>> from Sourceforge.
>
> That would be great. How much work would it involve? I thought about  
> leaving
> the sources on the sourceforge and either the main website would move  
> to the
> ObjectWeb's forge or there would be a redirection from OW to SF. What  
> do you
> think?
>
>> First, if Massiv does move to LGPL license and we start to build MMO  
>> on
>> top, I could designate some engineering resource into the maintenance
>> and improvement of Massiv. Moreover, most of the graphics engines we
>> are evaluating right now are open source engines under LGPL or other
>> open source license. If we could use Massiv, I think we could produce  
>> a
>> end-to-end middleware for MMO development.
>
> That sounds promising.
>
>> Second, since Massiv is almost a three years project, are there any
>> papers published on the system? If so, where can I find the paper?
>
> Yes. See the download section on our website, massiv SF downloads
> (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=16201), the
> Programmer's Guide
> (http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/massiv/massiv_programmers_guide 
> -1.1.pdf?
> download)
> and massiv/doc directory on the CVS.
>
>> Third, where are the original development team now? Would any one of
>> them be interested in joining MMO development studio? ;)
>
> The original team members are unfortunatelly very busy and do not have  
> the
> sufficient time/interest in improving the project. However I am ready  
> to
> give
> you hints, help understanding the core and answer to technical  
> questions on
> the library internals if the project will be resurrected.
>
> Thanks.
> -- Marek
>
>

Hi.

We are happy that you are interested in the Massiv project and are sorry to
have you let waiting for the reply so long. There were some problems
contacting other members of the original team that were resolved at last. We
have had a talk about your offer over the past weekend and got to a final
agreeement. Unfortunatelly we must warn you that some features that are
required to make Massiv ready for production use are still missing and would
require non-trivial changes/improvements of the core library. These are
mainly network fault-tolerance and administration & maintenance utilities
(see
our TODO list,
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/massiv/massiv/doc/TODO?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup).
It is also important to point at some specifics of the Massiv architecture
where servers are not assumed to be located on a LAN. In a LAN-based
middleware some of the features would either be implemented differently
(and easily) or even not at all. We highly recommend consulting the
Presentation and reading the Programmer's Guide thoroughly prior trying
to do anything with the Massiv.

>I'd like to ask if it's possible to move Massiv to LGPL license.

Yes. We do not have any plans on improving the Massiv and are ready to
change the license in order to meet potential contractor's needs for free.
The
license can be certainly changed to LGPL and possibly to a BSD-like license.
The latter will be required unless you are willing to contribute all changes
to the Massiv core back under LGPL.

>Come to think about it, it would be great to move Massiv to ObjectWeb's
forge
>from Sourceforge.

That would be great. How much work would it involve? I thought about leaving
the sources on the sourceforge and either the main website would move to the
ObjectWeb's forge or there would be a redirection from OW to SF. What do you
think?

>First, if Massiv does move to LGPL license and we start to build MMO on
>top, I could designate some engineering resource into the maintenance
>and improvement of Massiv. Moreover, most of the graphics engines we
>are evaluating right now are open source engines under LGPL or other
>open source license. If we could use Massiv, I think we could produce a
>end-to-end middleware for MMO development.

That sounds promising.

>Second, since Massiv is almost a three years project, are there any
>papers published on the system? If so, where can I find the paper?

Yes. See the download section on our website, massiv SF downloads
(http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=16201), the
Programmer's Guide
(http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/massiv/massiv_programmers_guide-1.1.pdf?
download)
and massiv/doc directory on the CVS.

>Third, where are the original development team now? Would any one of
>them be interested in joining MMO development studio? ;)

The original team members are unfortunatelly very busy and do not have the
sufficient time/interest in improving the project. However I am ready to
give
you hints, help understanding the core and answer to technical questions on
the library internals if the project will be resurrected.

Thanks.
-- Marek

On Thursday 09 of September 2004 12:28, you wrote:

> Ohledne licenci do toho nijak nevidim. Zatim teda psat nic nebudu, mozna k
> veceru nejake obecne kecy, ale to se teprve uvidi. Pokud by se nedohodlo
> nic konecneho dneska, bylo by dobre minimalne odepsat, ze mail bereme na
> vedomi a ze se k nemu vyjadrime v prubehu nasledujiciho tydne.

Mozna sesmolim nejakou odpoved a poslu ji tobe, at si to upravis jak uznas za 
vhodne. Predpokladam, ze licence stylu LGPL + nechceme zadne prachy + 
neslibujem zadny support krome par mailu na tebe je ok?

Pozn.: LGPL chapu jako:
- Muzes si na tom postavit jakykoliv produkt, nemusis ho opensourcovat.
- Zmeny ve vlastnich LGPL zdrojacich musis vyslat pod LGPL.
Osobne bych byl klidne i pro BSD-style licenci, ktera je "delej si s tim co 
chces" a je pro komercni produkty bezpecnejsi. Protoze u Massivu neni vubec 
jasne, co je jeste modifikace massivu a co uz ne.

-- Sipak

> > Odpovedet na par technickych mailu za mesic, pripadne s necim poradit,
pro
> > me nebude problem.
>
> Tak co kdybychom pro tebe meli prvni mailovy task, a to sesmolit mu
nejakou
> odpoved (aby jim bylo hned jasne, s kym kdyztak budou jednat). Podminky si
> dohodni jake chces, ale rozhodne bych je varoval, ze je massiv celkem v
> soucasne podobe k nicemu.

Ohledne licenci do toho nijak nevidim. Zatim teda psat nic nebudu, mozna k
veceru nejake obecne kecy, ale to se teprve uvidi. Pokud by se nedohodlo nic
konecneho dneska, bylo by dobre minimalne odepsat, ze mail bereme na vedomi
a ze se k nemu vyjadrime v prubehu nasledujiciho tydne.

-- Markoid

>  - Nikdo z puvodniho teamu nema cas/naladu Massivu se nadale aktivne
venovat.
>    (mozna Markoid by mohl/chtel poskytovat nejake rady?)

Odpovedet na par technickych mailu za mesic, pripadne s necim poradit, pro
me nebude problem.

>  - Massiv ma nekolik zasadnich designovych nedostatku a neni zdaleka
mature,
>    udelat pod nim komercni zalezitost vidim jako dost velky risk.

Spis bych ho odkazal na TODO a ze jsou veci, ktere by bylo pro ucely
komercniho nasazeni potreba dodelat.

>+ Odkazy na nase dokumenty

S poznamkou, ze programmer's guide pdf je ten "paper" co chce.

Co se tyce presunu massivu na ObjectWeb, pokud by to ten chlapik chtel
udelat, nejsem vubec proti. Byl bych i ochoten mu s tim pomoci.
Se vsim ostatnim jinak souhlasim.

-- Markoid

Asi tak nejak, nevidim duvod, proc se to nemohlo prelicencovat.
Manik je to z toho ale celej nejakej roztesenej a vzrusenej, takze by
asi bylo na miste ho i varovat, aby se nam nespalil :o).
O.

SV> Tak co mu napisem?
SV> (viz massiv-devel, originalni message radeji na konci posilam znovu, pokud
SV> nekomu nefunguje/nechodi massiv-devel; napr. Markoidovi to zjevne neprislo,
SV> protoze cokoliv s "China" v textu ceu zahazuje jako spam?)

SV> Osobne bych to videl na:
SV> - Klidne to prelicencujem pod LGPL, coz z naseho pohledu znamena:
SV>   - Muze si nad Massivem udelat co se mu zlibi, nikoho se nemusi na nic ptat
SV>     nebo neco platit
SV>   - Musi zmeny do vlastniho Massiv Core contributovat zpet pod LGPL
SV> - Zaroven bych upozornil:
SV>   - Nikdo z puvodniho teamu nema cas/naladu Massivu se nadale aktivne venovat.
SV>     (mozna Markoid by mohl/chtel poskytovat nejake rady?)
SV>   - Massiv ma nekolik zasadnich designovych nedostatku a neni zdaleka mature,
SV>     udelat pod nim komercni zalezitost vidim jako dost velky risk.
SV> + Odkazy na nase dokumenty

SV> Tak se k tomu prosim vyjadrete, at muzeme co nejdriv (nejlepe zitra) napsat
SV> oficialni odpoved.

SV> -- Sipak



SV> ---
SV> Original message 1:

SV> Hi,

SV>    I am running a start up MMO development studio in China. As hot as
SV> the Chinese market may seem, the budget for game development is still
SV> very small. I am looking at open source to help on keeping the cost
SV> low. I just come cross Massiv and it seems that it's a good foundation
SV> to build on. However, the GPL license makes it difficult to integrate
SV> it into commercial project.

SV>    I'd like to ask if it's possible to move Massiv to LGPL license. I am
SV> a firm believer of open source. In fact, I sits on the board of 
SV> directors of ObjectWeb of which Charles University is a member. Come to
SV> think about it, it would be great to move Massiv to ObjectWeb's forge
SV> from Sourceforge.

SV>    If changing the license to LGPL is not possible, I'd like to know if
SV> it's possible to grant a commercial license. If so, how would the 
SV> license term be?

SV>    As much as I believe in open source of software, game development
SV> involves a lot of art work development as well as game specific logic.
SV> The artwork and game logics is our competitive advantage in the market
SV> and we can't afford to open source these two, at least in short term.
SV> There is really no business model for open source games at this point.

SV> ObjectWeb: Open Source Middleware
SV> http://www.objectweb.org/index.html

SV> ObjectWeb Members
SV> http://consortium.objectweb.org/members.php

SV> Thanks.

SV> David Li

SV> ---
SV> Original message 2:

SV> Forgot to mention these in my previous mail. Got a bit excited of the
SV> idea of moving Massiv to ObjectWeb. :)

SV> First, if Massiv does move to LGPL license and we start to build MMO on
SV> top, I could designate some engineering resource into the maintenance
SV> and improvement of Massiv. Moreover, most of the graphics engines we
SV> are evaluating right now are open source engines under LGPL or other
SV> open source license. If we could use Massiv, I think we could produce a
SV> end-to-end middleware for MMO development.

SV> Second, since Massiv is almost a three years project, are there any
SV> papers published on the system? If so, where can I find the paper?

SV> Third, where are the original development team now? Would any one of
SV> them be interested in joining MMO development studio? ;)

SV> Thanks.

SV> David Li