# anyone ever gotten xerox to clarify the MOO license

Alex Stewart (riche@crl.com)
Thu, 9 Jan 1997 14:50:12 PST

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    > >>It would seem to me that since the MOO code is a derivitive work based
    > >>on a previous work by Stephen White, aka ghond, that if he were to GPL
    > >>the original work, then that would solve the whole problem for once
    > >>and for all: Xerox would either have to make MOO fall under the terms
    > >>of the GPL, or not distribute MOO.  But it is too late for them to not
    > >>distribute MOO, since that has already been done.
    [...]
    > Okay, let me see... here's some GPL stuff:
    >
    [...]
    >
    >   b. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
    > or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
    > be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms
    > of this License.
    >
    [...]
    >
    > Even though Pavel wrote a large section of the code, that code, as long as
    > it still contains White's section, has to be under the GPL assuming White
    > were to declare it as such.

    The GPL ploy would essentially remove the possibility of Xerox charging for the
    MOO server, however please note that absolutely nowhere in the GPL does it say
    anything about requiring derivative works to be distributed at all.  It would
    still be possible for Xerox (should they, for some unforseen reason, want to)
    to simply not license the MOO server at all, for any use.

    Admittedly, this seems even more remote a possibility than them wanting to
    charge for it, so it's not necessarily something to worry about, but the
    implication that putting ghond's work under the GPL would somehow force Xerox
    to live by our terms isn't entirely correct.  They could still take their
    marbles and go home, as it were.

    (please note, BTW, that the earlier implication that since the MOO server has
    already been distributed Xerox would have to license it under the GPL is not
    correct.  Since Xerox never officially licensed or distributed the MOO server
    to begin with, all currently existing copies are technically illegal, as is
    their use, should Xerox decide to enforce their copyright.)

    -R
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Alex Stewart - riche@crl.com - Richelieu @ Diversity University MOO
                             http://www.crl.com/~riche
               "For the world is hollow, and I have touched the sky."