RunUO Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Possibly the biggest announcement ever for RunUO!
- Thread starter Ryan
- Start date
thegrandmystic
Sorceror
Wow. Just, wow. I thought I'd never see this day, but RunUO going open-source? This is probably one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. I'm sure this will be a good thing for the future of RunUO. 
I was just reading a message from the POL dev boards; they have started thinning out lately, but the question of open sourcing POL has come up because of this, not by a dev though, there are some over there that really think this will sink POL. I love it; RunUO went from nothing and in about a 2 year period of time, it has surpassed emulator status, and has surpassed that which is floating around calling themselves emulators.
I used to like POL, I used to like it a lot; until RunUO came along, I was a die hard POL fan. I got ahold of RunUO, took a peek at the scripts, how fast it ran in beta, how fast it loaded in beta and was a convertee on the spot.
RunUO is king, and soon it will rule the world as far as free shards are concerned, nothing can hold a candle to it.
RunUO Rocks, there is no doubt in my mind.
If anyone has the time can you post a time line of the first RunUO through 1.0.0 please
I used to like POL, I used to like it a lot; until RunUO came along, I was a die hard POL fan. I got ahold of RunUO, took a peek at the scripts, how fast it ran in beta, how fast it loaded in beta and was a convertee on the spot.
RunUO is king, and soon it will rule the world as far as free shards are concerned, nothing can hold a candle to it.
RunUO Rocks, there is no doubt in my mind.
If anyone has the time can you post a time line of the first RunUO through 1.0.0 please
Originally Posted by Ryan
Our license will prevent people from building a new game off of RunUO and charging for it
My two cents.
I build many custom products for a living, things never before created and some with a market potential. In many cases long ago we considered patents on things that we created for very specific specialized things.
After researching cost to patent, the figuring out how much time we would spend defending and chasing down potential violations of our patent we said screw it. Like your market ours is very specialized.
I commend the team for taking the huge step to open source, I am sure that was a massive and very difficult desicion after the countless hours you all have invested.
I am not sure how copywright/liscence differ but I understand defending them both is about an equally daunting task.
I am very anxious to get the source myself, and look foreward to helping contribute to the products development.
Just thought I would mention several years of experiance with a similar issue. The very best luck going foreward to you all.
Our license will prevent people from building a new game off of RunUO and charging for it
My two cents.
I build many custom products for a living, things never before created and some with a market potential. In many cases long ago we considered patents on things that we created for very specific specialized things.
After researching cost to patent, the figuring out how much time we would spend defending and chasing down potential violations of our patent we said screw it. Like your market ours is very specialized.
I commend the team for taking the huge step to open source, I am sure that was a massive and very difficult desicion after the countless hours you all have invested.
I am not sure how copywright/liscence differ but I understand defending them both is about an equally daunting task.
I am very anxious to get the source myself, and look foreward to helping contribute to the products development.
Just thought I would mention several years of experiance with a similar issue. The very best luck going foreward to you all.
PerfectWing
Wanderer
Speaking of PlayUO, and cohesively RunUO.
What are the odds these two ever become the 'mainstream' of the emulator community. By which, I mean, RunUO perhaps explicitly supports features linked to PlayUO in which players would need to use PlayUO (Which will no longer be considered beta at said time!) to invoke?
I suppose some examples could be:
True code support for dual-wielding, (let's pretend art and animation are figments of the imagination here for a moment) or adding the ability to drag-drop items onto gumps (pretty sure it's not possible through the OSI client), so forth and so on.
If my examples are bad ones, just make up your own. But, hopefully, you can get the gist of my idea. Phasing out the OSI client to remove the limitations there-in?
What are the odds these two ever become the 'mainstream' of the emulator community. By which, I mean, RunUO perhaps explicitly supports features linked to PlayUO in which players would need to use PlayUO (Which will no longer be considered beta at said time!) to invoke?
I suppose some examples could be:
True code support for dual-wielding, (let's pretend art and animation are figments of the imagination here for a moment) or adding the ability to drag-drop items onto gumps (pretty sure it's not possible through the OSI client), so forth and so on.
If my examples are bad ones, just make up your own. But, hopefully, you can get the gist of my idea. Phasing out the OSI client to remove the limitations there-in?
First I would like to say that I was surprised when I found out RunUO was indeed going opensource. After what was happening around the "poll" about this matter in the past, I really didnt believe this will come to happen. But as a sort of opensource enthusiast, I am really glad for it.
I'd like to comment some matters which appeared here in the discussion:
Anyway, if someone was going to make a commercial game based on it, you would probably never know it, simply because companies usually dont just have people look at their online game servers, let alone their source codes.
You can of course choose/create some very own license, independent on OSI, but you still can't stop people selling it in some form if they really wanted.
That being said, know that I can understand why you want such limitation , but I would suggest not to care about this matter.
I'd like to comment some matters which appeared here in the discussion:
This is all nice, saying that the problem is in mono, but it doesnt help it. The fact is, if the core wont work on mono in it's current state (and I am not positive about it, I havent tried it), then it probably means that in mono, some part of the standard libnraries are missing or bugged. Now if you still want it to work, you can either fix mono (which may be quite complicated if you are not acquainted enough with it), or you can rewrite some part(s) of the core to not use the flawed mono classes - I believe the second solution could be far easier. Without having runuo opensource, this would be impossible.Quantos said:
In that case I dont think it is going to be an osi approved license. Look at the first and third paragraph of The Open Source Definition, it says you must allow derivative works and redistribution with no additional requirements (like not being commercial).Ryan said:Our license will prevent people from building a new game off of RunUO and charging for it
Anyway, if someone was going to make a commercial game based on it, you would probably never know it, simply because companies usually dont just have people look at their online game servers, let alone their source codes.
You can of course choose/create some very own license, independent on OSI, but you still can't stop people selling it in some form if they really wanted.
That being said, know that I can understand why you want such limitation , but I would suggest not to care about this matter.
Quantos
Lord
Tartaros said:
If all they want is an incomplete, flawed product, that will not run correctly, or even support all of the features that RunUO currently supports then I suppose they could approach it this way. Anyone with any measure of smarts would leave it as is however and steer clear of that mess.
yeah that is true. But maybe the problem is not too deep and you can make it work with just a few changes which wont affect the behaviour at all (and maybe not, I am no kind of mono guruQuantos said:
And I positively know there are people who would rather die than have a server based on Windows OS. You may not agree with them, but you should accept their existance and their right for an uo server
No, we dont have to.Tartaros said:yeah that is true. But maybe the problem is not too deep and you can make it work with just a few changes which wont affect the behaviour at all (and maybe not, I am no kind of mono guru
And I positively know there are people who would rather die than have a server based on Windows OS. You may not agree with them, but you should accept their existance and their right for an uo server
Tartaros said:
*working around* any flaws in Mono is inherantly bad programming practice and anyone that does it after our release is well... just not going to be supported. I honestly am getting tired of this whole "I hate Windows" attitude, if you hate Windows, RunUO should be the last program you use. While I appreciate your choice to be here, and contribute to RunUO I would aslo ask that you not be so confrontational about the Mono issue. I personally am a Linux guy, I have been forever and I alwasy will be. I just, unlike the majority of Linux users am not a biggot about other OS's.
This is absolutely not true. When you release an opensource application you are absolutely within your right to dual license the product. You can release a "GNU" package directly followed with a "Commercial" package. The user, would be forced to choose between the GNU and Commercial license based on what they were doing with the code. That said the project then has NO obligation to license anyone for the "Commercial" side of thigns.
Of course you tell us that we shouldn't care about such things, but again this is very easy to say when you have no concept of the amount of time that has gone into this project. I would ask that you just be understanding of the fact that we want to protect our code from being used in any way, shape or form for commercial gain when we have not done that ourselves.
The "spirit" of open source software is not at all what the majority of people here think it is, and to different people it means different things.
I personally am very much for opensource software, and I have run a couple of successful, and a couple of not so successful opensource software projects, and every single time I run into these ungreatful bastards that drive me insane when it comes to *THIS* is how opensource *SHOULD* be. (Not saying thats you, just saying in general it always happens).
Anyway, its really early in the morning and I havent had my coffee yet. Glad to see all of you guys excited over us opensourcing RunUO
Caleb Darkmoon
Wanderer
Hell yeah!!! Thanks, Ryan.
This will help so much with being able to see things I have only been able to use the stuff in the docs folder to get a glimpse at. Now I can actually look at the whole script and get a better understanding of it.
RunUO rocks!!!
Keep up the good work, Dev team.
This will help so much with being able to see things I have only been able to use the stuff in the docs folder to get a glimpse at. Now I can actually look at the whole script and get a better understanding of it.
RunUO rocks!!!
Keep up the good work, Dev team.
Seriously, wise up guys.
Both those who are for this and those who are against seem to be ignorant of the way open source works.
There may or may not be forks but none of them will be taken seriously unless the current development team ignores good patches. Open source projects generally work in a simple fashion.
1. There are one or more maintainers who ultimately determine when it's time to release and what goes into the release.
2. There is a core set of developers who the mainters trust and have proven themselves who hand off quality code to the maintainers.
3. There are less trusted individuals who could range from grand code wizard to vb programmer, they submit their code to members of the core set who look at it and submit it if it's good for them. Of course the core developers give credits in the changelogs.
4. Forks are never given credibility unless the maintainers refuse patches (not just individual patches or from a certain source, but refuse substantial amounts of good code that adds features a lot of people want) and even then, most of the original developers end up coding for the fork under a different chain of command. Generally the original fork twiches for a bit and dies.
As far as stability, well, popular open source projects compose the most stable software in the world. The least popular ones rank slightly better than unpopular freeware you'll find on download.com.
If this project gets momentum I suspect the first thing we'll see on the development front is code being rewritten to make it happy with mono. That way you can have a single version that runs on windows and linux and doesn't require a seperate maintainer.
Both those who are for this and those who are against seem to be ignorant of the way open source works.
There may or may not be forks but none of them will be taken seriously unless the current development team ignores good patches. Open source projects generally work in a simple fashion.
1. There are one or more maintainers who ultimately determine when it's time to release and what goes into the release.
2. There is a core set of developers who the mainters trust and have proven themselves who hand off quality code to the maintainers.
3. There are less trusted individuals who could range from grand code wizard to vb programmer, they submit their code to members of the core set who look at it and submit it if it's good for them. Of course the core developers give credits in the changelogs.
4. Forks are never given credibility unless the maintainers refuse patches (not just individual patches or from a certain source, but refuse substantial amounts of good code that adds features a lot of people want) and even then, most of the original developers end up coding for the fork under a different chain of command. Generally the original fork twiches for a bit and dies.
As far as stability, well, popular open source projects compose the most stable software in the world. The least popular ones rank slightly better than unpopular freeware you'll find on download.com.
If this project gets momentum I suspect the first thing we'll see on the development front is code being rewritten to make it happy with mono. That way you can have a single version that runs on windows and linux and doesn't require a seperate maintainer.
Ryan said:*working around* any flaws in Mono is inherantly bad programming practice and anyone that does it after our release is well... just not going to be supported. I honestly am getting tired of this whole "I hate Windows" attitude, if you hate Windows, RunUO should be the last program you use. While I appreciate your choice to be here, and contribute to RunUO I would aslo ask that you not be so confrontational about the Mono issue. I personally am a Linux guy, I have been forever and I alwasy will be. I just, unlike the majority of Linux users am not a biggot about other OS's.
This is absolutely not true. When you release an opensource application you are absolutely within your right to dual license the product. You can release a "GNU" package directly followed with a "Commercial" package. The user, would be forced to choose between the GNU and Commercial license based on what they were doing with the code. That said the project then has NO obligation to license anyone for the "Commercial" side of thigns.
Of course you tell us that we shouldn't care about such things, but again this is very easy to say when you have no concept of the amount of time that has gone into this project. I would ask that you just be understanding of the fact that we want to protect our code from being used in any way, shape or form for commercial gain when we have not done that ourselves.
The "spirit" of open source software is not at all what the majority of people here think it is, and to different people it means different things.
I personally am very much for opensource software, and I have run a couple of successful, and a couple of not so successful opensource software projects, and every single time I run into these ungreatful bastards that drive me insane when it comes to *THIS* is how opensource *SHOULD* be. (Not saying thats you, just saying in general it always happens).
Anyway, its really early in the morning and I havent had my coffee yet. Glad to see all of you guys excited over us opensourcing RunUO
Ryan, I'm sorry but your wrong. You mention the GNU, I assume you mean the GPL which is the license used by the GNU. This license explicitly allows you to charge to redistribute, the ONLY restriction upon redistribution in the GPL is that you make the source available including your changes to those to whom you distribute binaries.
You could argue this precludes commercial use but there are a number of commercial products under this license.
When someone duel licenses something which is available under the gpl, they are not licensing commercial rights, they are licensing the right to modify the source and distribute it, without releasing the sourcecode of your changes under the GPL.
In the case of a gameserver, if a commercial derivative is made, they aren't likely to be distributing gameserver binaries and therefore wouldn't be required to provide their changes in the first place. Like most MMORPG games, they would likely run their own server and distribute only the client.
If your license doesn't allow for this, it is neither the GPL, nor an OSI approved license. If you guys aren't clear on this, it's time to step back, read the GPL and read the OSI license requirements.