Requiring NDA for ServUO code?

[Eleos]

The server where I've been playing and sometimes contributing ServUO bug fixes and other stuff to is making everyone sign NDAs, saying that any code we give UOAlive shall become the sole property of his company.

It's making me wary, like would that mean if I make a fix to something in ServUO and give it to him before I publish the fix here, does that give him the ability to go after me? His NDA also specifies that it's forever. I haven't dealt with NDAs around ServUO code before, and I'm feeling weird about this.

Anyone have any feedback on it? (I asked about this elsewhere, thought I'd try here, too. Hoping to learn from others, and not sure how other places run things.)

 

[Dramoor]

The guy wants you to work for free for him to make money while he makes vlogs about how great he is. That is what I see when I look up his stuff. Let him fix his own bugs or PAY someone like all other server owners do.

 

[Voxpire]

IMO, it goes against everything that open source stands for.

In all of the years I've spent in the free-shard community, not a single time have I ever had to sign an NDA or require someone to sign one.

As a developer, you have an inherent copyright over the code you produce, and how you distribute that code is up to you.

If you publish a change to the ServUO repo, before publishing it to the NDA repo, then you still retain all rights to that code, since you cannot give ownership of something that is already public.

The real reason behind this NDA is so that they can prevent your hard work from benefiting the wider free-shard community, there's nothing more to it really, other than they really don't like it when people talk "behind their back".

You have the legal right to refuse to sign it.

I am not sure if they can put you under duress with a deadline to sign, you should have ample time to speak with a legal representative before signing.

 

[Voxpire]

Here's what ChatGPT had to say about it...

 

[HellRazor]

I agree with everything Voxpire said above.

I wouldn't sign anything like that, especially if I wasn't getting paid for my work.

The only reason for them to require something like this would be to use it to threaten you if you do something with your code that they don't like.

There are lots of other great shards looking for coders. You don't have to abide by their unreasonable demands.

 

[Wilson]

As an experienced member of this community spanning two decades, I firmly believe that it is not ethical for any shard to profit from the content that is created and offered to the public free of charge, with the exception of server costs which can be sustained through voluntary donations. While I did struggle with the notion of implementing a paid system myself, I ultimately decided that offering one script for a small fee to offset minor expenses incurred was justifiable, particularly in light of my extensive history of providing free scripts. However, I find it concerning that some individuals choose to impose non-disclosure agreements on others, as this seems to be an unfortunate reflection of the societal norms that are currently in place. In summary, I feel strongly that as a general scripter for the community as a whole, it is crucial to adhere to ethical practices when it comes to financial considerations surrounding the distribution of content.

The guy wants you to work for free for him to make money while he makes vlogs about how great he is. That is what I see when I look up his stuff. Let him fix his own bugs or PAY someone like all other server owners do.

10 min investigation reveals the truth!



Interesting, like you said, Photographer by day and Shard Owner by night, if that, seems like another YouTuber influencer trying to make money on multiple fronts!

 

[dagid4]

I understand both sides. Sometimes there is a competition between shards. If you've build a shard from ground, made nice features, have a lot of players, you don't want some newcomers to steal your work and release it, or make a copy shard.

On the other side. Your work (if you provide it free) should stay yours. Why would you give them rights for free? I wouldn't do that.

 

[HellRazor]

Requiring an NDA for a game that is 90% someone else's open-sourced source code, and which uses someone else's game assets and mechanics, is ridiculous. If he ever tried to enforce his NDA they would laugh him out of court.

Some people really take all the fun out of this.

 

[dagid4]

Still, you don't have to release your own code, even if it is only 10%. Your code is your code, I wouldn't laugh at someone rights to his code.

 

[PyrO]

the 2% of the custom code, is not even his code but code he collected from forums and claims its his.

Just stop playing the shard, dont give it any attention and let it die. So much drama because of 1 guy / 1 shard ..

 

[Olórin]

Lol, that guy is such a creep.. I stopped playing on his shard after a week.. his attitude is toxic.

 

[HellRazor]

Still, you don't have to release your own code, even if it is only 10%. Your code is your code, I wouldn't laugh at someone rights to his code.

The code belongs to the person who wrote it. If the shard admin doesn't trust his coders, then he should either find other coders, not give them access to the shard source repository, or do all the coding himself. Don't reward their generosity contributing to his project for free by trying to force an NDA on them (an NDA that very likely cannot even be legally enforced).

What, does he think he is EA or something? It's a friggin' game emulator and a friggin' hobby. What kind of asshat forms an LLC for a player run shard?

If he wants to launch his own game and profit from it, he should launch his own original game (good luck finding contributors with his attitude), not an emulator of someone else's game that uses someone else's code, and other code that is given to him for free.

This reminds me of all the creeps that steal other people's work and try to take credit for it as being their own work.

 

[BTactZ]

Don’t sign anything like that. I’ve been around that server long enough to know that guy is insane. I’d prefer you take your talents and community attitude somewhere that will appreciate what you do. You can’t do that for open source code.

 

[UO-Orion]

 

[lojohu]

This is his post on his Forums, he's trying to spin it that the NDAs are to protect the player's privacy by preventing UOA staff from giving out players' confidential personal information NOT what it actually is, which is to claim ownership of other people's code.

I'll give the man credit, he might be a delusional sociopath but he can spin like a politician.

 

[dagid4]

The code belongs to the person who wrote it. If the shard admin doesn't trust his coders, then he should either find other coders, not give them access to the shard source repository, or do all the coding himself. Don't reward their generosity contributing to his project for free by trying to force an NDA on them (an NDA that very likely cannot even be legally enforced).

What, does he think he is EA or something? It's a friggin' game emulator and a friggin' hobby. What kind of asshat forms an LLC for a player run shard?

If he wants to launch his own game and profit from it, he should launch his own original game (good luck finding contributors with his attitude), not an emulator of someone else's game that uses someone else's code, and other code that is given to him for free.

This reminds me of all the creeps that steal other people's work and try to take credit for it as being their own work.

I want to add that I don't support money profiting from UO emulators at all. It is disgusting to profit on someone else game.

For the NDA, I know one local shard that required it. Just to make sure that you won't release other contributors work against their will. I think this is completely legal. You don't have to be EA to claim your rights.

As you said, these mentioned creeps exist even between otherwise good coders and it can happen very often that someone from the team steals your code and release it. NDA is here to prevent it and for this case I find it useful.

Lot of shards doesn't release their code, even if it is based on open source emulator. For example I cannot find source code for UO Outlands (biggest shard I know). Why would they release it? I can give several reasons why they shouldn't.

View attachment 21786

Please read it carefully; "anyone who receives a copy of your version". It doesn't say anything about the case when you don't have the copy.

The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all.

If you sign NDA before you get the copy, it is atleast questionable for me whether you can release it. I'm not a laywer 🙂

 

[HellRazor]

I want to add that I don't support money profiting from UO emulators at all. It is disgusting to profit on someone else game.

For the NDA, I know one local shard that required it. Just to make sure that you won't release other contributors work against their will. I think this is completely legal. You don't have to be EA to claim your rights.

As you said, these mentioned creeps exist even between otherwise good coders and it can happen very often that someone from the team steals your code and release it. NDA is here to prevent it and for this case I find it useful.

Lot of shards doesn't release their code, even if it is based on open source emulator. For example I cannot find source code for UO Outlands (biggest shard I know). Why would they release it? I can give several reasons why they shouldn't.

Please read it carefully; "anyone who receives a copy of your version". It doesn't say anything about the case when you don't have the copy.

The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all.

If you sign NDA before you get the copy, it is atleast questionable for me whether you can release it. I'm not a laywer 🙂

An NDA won't prevent any of that. What is he going to do, sue someone over it? Ridiculous. Like I said, this would be laughed out of court. He'd be better off by just choosing his contributors wisely.

From a contributor standpoint, why would anyone ever sign any kind of legal document like this for the dubious honor of providing free work to a dime-a-dozen UO shard project? What's in it for the contributor? He already isn't getting paid, he's not an employee. The shard isn't a legitimate business, LLC or not.

These guys who try to build their shards up like they are some kind of big corporation kind of suck.

 

[Greystar]

Interesting back in the day I wrote a couple of items for UOAlive. One was a deed box that converted Large bulk order deeds into their smaller deeds so it was easier to fill said deeds. I also wrote a few other items for them as well. If they were to tell me this while I was still actively coding/playing there I was quit contributing and IMMEDIATELY post all my code available to anyone to use. NDA's don't apply to code anyway, as these are to prevent people from talking about "said item" to keep information from getting out before a certain time. NDA = Non-Disclosure Agreement.

 

[dagid4]

What is he going to do, sue someone over it?

Under the assumption that you don't make money from UO (which he is making, so screw him)... emulator its self is legal and if someone releases your code without permission, I would sue him even without NDA.

He'd be better off by just choosing his contributors wisely.

You can chose wisely as you want, but when the team becomes bigger and people are coming and leaving, there is a huge chance that you will encounter some bad guy.

From a contributor standpoint, why would anyone ever sign any kind of legal document like this for the dubious honor of providing free work to a dime-a-dozen UO shard project?

I would sign it for a shard that I want to be great, I want to participate, and I don't want someone to come, take all the work and make a copy shard. And this happens a lot of times with different projects. Very often this is also an end for the project.

What's in it for the contributor?

Your work is atleast somehow protected from unwanted release.

However, I would never give ownership of my code to someone else for free. This is the problem of this NDA that I wouldn't never sign because of this.

 

[HellRazor]

Don't get me wrong, I am against anyone pulling a dirty trick like violating a shard owner's trust and giving the shard's code and assets away against his wishes. That's a sucky thing to do.

But the entire concept of requiring an NDA for a hobby UO shard (which uses EA's intellectual property and assets, RunUO's open source code, ServUO's open source code, and God knows how many other people's source code from forums and elsewhere) is silly and ridiculous. And somewhat insulting to people who are contributing their talent and work for free, IMHO.

I am also pretty sure that under the GPL, modifications to the RUO and SUO source codes are automatically considered to be open source. I know most shards ignore this, and that's ok. But the point is, this pretty much renders this NDA legally unenforceable since our shards are derivative works of RUO/SUO. And wait until the fact that it's all basically reverse-engineered and/or stolen from EA gets brought up in court. The NDA is not "protection" under these circumstances - it's worthless.

(Not to mention our court system has better things to do than to spend time engaged in petty squabbles concerning a hobby UO shard between presumably grown adults. The only people who will benefit is the lawyers involved).

Just carefully considering who to provide access to, and asking them to not share any of the source code, is just as (if not more) effective than requiring someone to sign dubious and worthless legal papers.

 

[dagid4]

Don't get me wrong, I am against anyone pulling a dirty trick like violating a shard owner's trust and giving the shard's code and assets away against his wishes. That's a sucky thing to do.

But the entire concept of requiring an NDA for a hobby UO shard (which uses EA's intellectual property and assets, RunUO's open source code, ServUO's open source code, and God knows how many other people's source code from forums and elsewhere) is silly and ridiculous. And somewhat insulting to people who are contributing their talent and work for free, IMHO.

I am also pretty sure that under the GPL, modifications to the RUO and SUO source codes are automatically considered to be open source. I know most shards ignore this, and that's ok. But the point is, this pretty much renders this NDA legally unenforceable since our shards are derivative works of RUO/SUO. And wait until the fact that it's all basically reverse-engineered and/or stolen from EA gets brought up in court. The NDA is not "protection" under these circumstances - it's worthless.

(Not to mention our court system has better things to do than to spend time engaged in petty squabbles concerning a hobby UO shard between presumably grown adults. The only people who will benefit is the lawyers involved).

Just carefully considering who to provide access to, and asking them to not share any of the source code, is just as (if not more) effective than requiring someone to sign dubious and worthless legal papers.

Well I'm not saying it would be easy to win such a law case 🙂 It also depends on the country you are living.

When it is just a small hobby, then okay. But I knew shards with thousands of invested hours. In 2000s the bigest shard in my country even paid a TV spot (costing them a lot of money). Hosting a server that time was also a huge cost. When you invest so much time and money, even when UO emulators are in gray zone, you want to protect your work.

 

[UO-Orion]

So from a legal standpoint, you can modify GNU GPLv2 code (I'll just call it GPL from now on) for private use to your heart's content. However, if you "distribute" your code (key phrase here) to anyone, it must be distributed under GPL (or GPL compatible equivalent). You CAN charge for the distribution, but once they have it, they can freely distribute as much as the way.

So the key term here is "distributed" to a member of the public. GPL defines "distribution" very loosely (on purpose). Simply showing them the code (and especially giving them access to a GitHub repo) is considered distribution. The only time code is not considered distributed is if they're an EMPLOYEE (or CURRENT contractor) of a business and the code is privately within the company. A company can require an NDA while the contractor is working for them, but after they leave (or the contract ends), it would be considered "distributed" to the contractor.

In this particular circumstance, these developers were volunteers and not employees. Therefore, the second any of the code was shown/accessible to them, it was "distributed" to them and they could (if they wanted) share it with anyone. This goes for pretty much all shards. GPL prohibits you from using an NDA as a condition of distribution (again with the employee exception). So for this NDA to be enforceable, they would need to be employees. However, Crafting Worlds LLC is headquartered in New Jersey which has very strict labor laws that prohibit businesses from considering volunteers to be "unpaid employees". So he's 100% $#!t out of luck in that department. If he IS paying any of his developers (and word is that one was being paid), he would have to follow all NJ labor laws, issue W2's or 1099's, pay workers comp and unemployment insurance, etc. I can guarantee none of that was followed in this instance.

So, the word to the wise is, if you don't want anyone to have your shard's code, you would need your contributors to have 0 access to your code and they would just send you stuff. Unless you employ them, you can't prevent them from distributing anything you send them! Your "copyright" does not apply to modifications to GPL code, except when kept privately. Code developed under different licenses may be different, but that's the reality here.

That being said, most people are here for the great community that's willing and happy to share all their cool stuff and ideas! Keep being the awesome community you are and let those who don't share in that spirit go their own way (likely downward).

 

[dagid4]

So from a legal standpoint, you can modify GNU GPLv2 code (I'll just call it GPL from now on) for private use to your heart's content. However, if you "distribute" your code (key phrase here) to anyone, it must be distributed under GPL (or GPL compatible equivalent). You CAN charge for the distribution, but once they have it, they can freely distribute as much as the way.

So the key term here is "distributed" to a member of the public. GPL defines "distribution" very loosely (on purpose). Simply showing them the code (and especially giving them access to a GitHub repo) is considered distribution. The only time code is not considered distributed is if they're an EMPLOYEE (or CURRENT contractor) of a business and the code is privately within the company. A company can require an NDA while the contractor is working for them, but after they leave (or the contract ends), it would be considered "distributed" to the contractor.

In this particular circumstance, these developers were volunteers and not employees. Therefore, the second any of the code was shown/accessible to them, it was "distributed" to them and they could (if they wanted) share it with anyone. This goes for pretty much all shards. GPL prohibits you from using an NDA as a condition of distribution (again with the employee exception). So for this NDA to be enforceable, they would need to be employees. However, Crafting Worlds LLC is headquartered in New Jersey which has very strict labor laws that prohibit businesses from considering volunteers to be "unpaid employees". So he's 100% $#!t out of luck in that department. If he IS paying any of his developers (and word is that one was being paid), he would have to follow all NJ labor laws, issue W2's or 1099's, pay workers comp and unemployment insurance, etc. I can guarantee none of that was followed in this instance.

So, the word to the wise is, if you don't want anyone to have your shard's code, you would need your contributors to have 0 access to your code and they would just send you stuff. Unless you employ them, you can't prevent them from distributing anything you send them! Your "copyright" does not apply to modifications to GPL code, except when kept privately. Code developed under different licenses may be different, but that's the reality here.

That being said, most people are here for the great community that's willing and happy to share all their cool stuff and ideas! Keep being the awesome community you are and let those who don't share in that spirit go their own way (likely downward).

Thanks for the clarification. Lot of interesting things about GPL. If this is true, then the NDA is basically useless for voluntary development.
Maybe GPL was not the best choice for Shard development. Im all in for sharing nice features, bugfixes and improving the emulator itself with the community. But you don't want to share your own running Shard with all the assets. Anyone working in your team can freely do it, release your whole Shard and by GPL this is completely fine and even welcomed.

 

[UO-Orion]

When it comes to ServUO, treat your contributors nicely and you'll be more effective than any NDA, employment contract, etc.

 

[Shazzy]

ServUO is based off of the BROADSWORD release, that has profited off of all the hard work the free servers have done, which in tern has NEVER ASKED ANY of the servers for a NDA, from zulu hotel(the first I knew of) til now. We use to be a community that submitted resources to share and now we just horde. What UOAlive is doing is unconscionable. If anyone is using ANY part of code from ServUO/RunUO/TrueUO, etc..then NO ONE can claim that it is their code. With his continual demand of an NDA, he must be removed from a community that has no worth for a person like that. We need to be resolved on this matter and a statement presented by ServUO that this is not and never will be condoned.

Thank you,
Shazzy
AKA: koluch

 

[dagid4]

Last post in this topic from me 🙂 I want to apologize for misleading posts about your code is your code. It seems that under GPL, this is not true (everyone can legaly steal your code if he get access to it). I wasn't aware of this. Next time I will check the license more thoroughly and probably search for projects with other licences, such as MIT or Apache where I hope your code is your code.

 

[Dorana]

Yes, but by definition of the source code license he's not permitted to redistribute is a closed source. So yes, he may continue to use the code provided, but is unable to in any way stop you from keeping your copy.

 

[dagid4]

I know that I promised last post, but this may be interesting.

A company can require an NDA while the contractor is working for them, but after they leave (or the contract ends), it would be considered "distributed" to the contractor.

It seems that for GPLv3 this is no longer true:

...Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you...

So they addressed this problem. Unfortunately RunUO/ServUO is released specifically with GPLv2, so no option to upgrade 🙁

 

[UO-Orion]

That is correct, in GPLv3 they added language to allow contractors to work on code without it being considered "distribution" and also clarified that putting it up in AWS or other cloud services (soley for the purpose of RUNNING said code) is also NOT distribution.

That being said, even under GPLv3, in most states, a contractor would have to be a paid entity (not a volunteer) to qualify for this exception AND the appropriate document would be the service contract (or similar) that dictates the terms of release, NOT an NDA. And as such would require the employer to issue a 1099 to that entity and everything else that goes with that (some varies by state).

 

[dagid4]

That is correct, in GPLv3 they added language to allow contractors to work on code without it being considered "distribution" and also clarified that putting it up in AWS or other cloud services (soley for the purpose of RUNNING said code) is also NOT distribution.

That being said, even under GPLv3, in most states, a contractor would have to be a paid entity (not a volunteer) to qualify for this exception AND the appropriate document would be the service contract (or similar) that dictates the terms of release, NOT an NDA. And as such would require the employer to issue a 1099 to that entity and everything else that goes with that (some varies by state).

Well but there is nothing about that it must be a contractor. This is what OpenAI told me (I know it can be wrong, please correct if it is):

Under the GPLv3, there is no specific requirement as to what kind of third party the people who are authorized to make modifications to the software exclusively for you may be.

This means that this work can be done by any person or organization that has the source code of the GPLv3-licensed software and agrees to make modifications exclusively for you.

This can include contractors who work for you full time, but also volunteers or even friends or family members who will provide their services free of charge.

 

[Chucl]

I never gave 2 fucks about NDA's in any game, if i feel like i record the gameplay, make some edits here and there and upload it somewhere and thats it. No way to find out who did it.

@ontopic, NDA on Ultima online is just pathetic.

 

[Voxpire]

NDA's today, like in this case here, are often abused to cover up some malicious/unethical activity and that's why they no longer hold much weight in court...

If they're legitimately used to protect what could be considered a trade secret, then that's totally reasonable IMO.

 

[Nikodemus]

I wouldn't work with someone in the freeshard scene who obligates others to keep silent and builds on code that doesn't actually belong to them nor is their creation. The fact is that the game and UO only thrive with the community and shards that build upon it. Sorry, but that developer should maybe open their eyes to the fact that the game only gets bigger with the community's support. I've been part of the UO community in Germany since 2003 and even helped build the first big UODev.de community with Nikodemus, greetings to Bender, Nacor, and all those who followed. The fact is that you only get better if you create something together, and above all, sharing has many more advantages than hoarding and ultimately causing the shards to disappear. Don't sign anything, don't let yourself be forced into anything, and honestly, there are many people here with whom you can create something together, and above all, every shard needs players, otherwise, it will remain empty.

 

[Praxiiz]

Companies regularly use and modify GPL code internally without ever releasing it. This is not a new or uncommon thing.

That being said, I don't think this NDA restricts you from releasing GPL scripts that you write for ServUO.

The Recipient shall not distribute any code related to the Server or its repositories. Any work done by the Recipient
on the Server or related to the Server during their time as a member of the Company's team shall become the sole
property of the Company.

The Recipient shall not distribute any code related to the Server or its repositories, except for modifications made
specifically for ServUO.

What constitutes a modification for ServUO? I would suggest that any custom scripts or systems written in C# that are compiled and executed by ServUO would fall under this exception.

Any custom server code (e.g. maybe you write a custom temperature sensor monitoring application for the server that notifies you when the CPU is hot) would fall under the NDA, but nothing to do with ServUO.

I think that everyone sees the word server and they think of ServUO. From the context of the wording, it seems clear to me that ServUO is only considered one application on the server.

 

[dagid4]

About the NDA for GPLv2, read it carefully: "This is permitted because in this case no GPL-covered code is being distributed". If you give someone access to your repo (and it is not an employee nor contractor) then by GPLv2 it is considered distributed. You cannot put NDA on distributed code. See UOMaddog explanation.

Any custom server code .. would fall under the NDA, but nothing to do with ServUO.

It depends if this custom server code is considered a derived work. Temperature app probably won't be a derived work, but website could possibly be a derived work and then must be licensed again as GPL.

 

[Chucl]

That shard owner thinks he owns some kind of AAA studio and hes developing next gen mmorpg or something like that, shard is kinda dead, plus there are plenty bots online, they faking online numbers

 

[UO-Orion]

Just to touch on a few points here...

"Does the GPL allow me to develop a modified version under an NDA?"

The point of clarification here is that this assumes that you're taking normal GPL code (say, a pull from the public ServUO repo) and developing a set a modifications for a client. The client can have you sign an NDA to agree to not release those changes to others. The base ServUO code is protected under GPL and your changes/modifications made for hire is under your copyright (and if released to the public, under the GPL).

However, the difference in the scenario being discussed in this thread is that the shard owner provided a copy of HIS repo (not the public one) to someone who is NOT an employee OR a contractor, just a volunteer. Therefore it is considered "distributed". This can NOT be done under an NDA (see my screenshot above). Also in this case, the shard owner was attempting to retroactively have volunteers sign this NDA.

As for the GPLv3 changes relating to contractors, they too have a very specific set of restrictions. GPLv2 did not allow a client (in this case the shard owner) to provide a copy of HIS modified software for a contractor to work on. GPLv3 DOES now permit this, BUT under the conditions of:
- Operating exclusively on the user's behalf
- Under the user's direction and control
- And required to keep the user's copyrighted changes confidential (BUT ONLY IF THE CONTRACTOR IS LIMITED TO ACTING ON THE USER'S BEHALF, just as the employees would have to act)

All 3 of those points may not be satisfied in situations such as the one being discussed in this thread. Volunteers may be helping multiple shards and therefore not exclusive to the shard owner's behalf (this could vary by contributor). Also, while volunteers may be under the direction of the shard owner, because no employment or service contract exists, they are in no way under the "control" of the shard owner. A shard owner's child may be the only wiggle room since as a parent you might be able to argue the child is under your "control", but even that is a stretch. The last point is where the NDA comes in, in that you would have to REQUIRE your contractor to sign an NDA that requires them to act basically the same as an employee. However, there's no way to do this for a volunteer as there is no contract that could legally force them to operate similar to an employee (and an NDA is NOT an employment contract or service contract). States have VERY strict laws (including NJ in this case) prohibiting for-profit businesses from using "volunteers" (including family members) or "unpaid employees/contractors" as this would allow businesses to skirt minimum wage requirements, SS/UE/WC taxes, etc.

So even under the newer GPLv3, the restrictions are a little better defined, but STILL don't allow for the scenario that occurred here. Under GPLv2, this scenario is 100% invalid.

TL;DR, if you want to control the code for your shard, using ServUO as a basis, while allowing others to develop code for you, hire them as employees and pay minimum wages/taxes! Otherwise, develop the code yourself and keep it private (or limited to your employees).


One additional thing to add here is that people often just assume "open source" means "free" software that you can do whatever you want with it. This is NOT true. No one forces you to use ServUO code and you're welcome to write your own UO server emulator or use one of the other ones out there. However, if you WANT to use ServUO, you MUST abide by it's license, in this case GPLv2. Other similar software might be available under MIT, Apache, BSD, AGPL, etc. that allows you more or less control of what you're developing, but don't make assumptions. Open source software licensing does have a significant impact on your development abilities! Make sure you read and understand it before taking stupid actions that could run you afoul of a license and make YOU liable

 

[Wilson]

I find it intriguing how this topic has been a subject of discussion throughout the week. Personally, I place less emphasis on the licensing aspect and instead focus on the broader issue within the internet. It is not limited to ServUO; rather, it reflects a prevalent trend of prioritizing profit at any cost. It seems like almost anyone can become an influencer these days, leading to a saturation of individuals seeking personal gain. While I understand and respect legitimate fundraising efforts to support valuable services, the situation has spiraled out of control. We are witnessing a growing number of individuals who contribute little or nothing to society, often exploiting the hard work of others to sustain their own livelihoods. When more people receive compensation for producing nothing of value, the overall monetary system becomes diluted and loses its true worth. To illustrate this, consider a hypothetical village where resources are diverted away from the hardworking farmer and herder to an idle individual who merely talks all day, acting as the village idiot. When the average worker receives a modest income while actors, sports players, YouTubers, and the like amass significant wealth, it signifies a society in decline, devoid of genuine value. These are just my personal observations and reflections.

 

[dagid4]

The most important thing about the exclusive work for GPLv3 is by my opinion:

"...on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you."

This is guaranteed by author laws (at least in my country). One cannot simply take my authored code and use it without my permission.

A shard owner's child may be the only wiggle room since as a parent you might be able to argue the child is under your "control", but even that is a stretch.

There is nothing about that you control the whole person. The control is about the code. As an author of code, I think its completely valid to say, that you control what other people can do with your code.

"...Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control..."

So even under the newer GPLv3, the restrictions are a little better defined, but STILL don't allow for the scenario that occurred here.

I disagree. If you make an agreement to work exclusively for someone, I think it is pretty straightforward that by GPLv3, you cannot leak the code.

Under GPLv2, this scenario is 100% invalid.

I agree with this. In GPLv2 you can leak the code. But if you break the trust, no one will want to work with you anymore.

 

[UO-Orion]

@dagid4 I think you may have misunderstood the context of what I was saying there. I'm not saying complete control of a whole person, what I'm saying is "control" as in a binding contract, whether that be an employment contract or a service contract (non-employee contractor). That contract would dictate the terms of your control. A contract establishes control of time/money/actions/etc. with legal remedies available to both parties.

A volunteer (with which you have no contract) is 0% under your "control". There is no legal remedy to come after them if they don't develop a piece of code the way you like or to your specification. Why I mentioned the child scenario is because absent a contract, a parent could still be considered able to "control" the time/money/actions/etc of a child in some way/shape/form (again, it's a stretch, but MIGHT fit the scenario, absent a contract).

An NDA is NOT an employment contract or service contract. It is simply an agreement not to talk about or disclose certain information (that is legally able to be covered by an NDA) without the appropriate permissions to do so. In the case of GPL (v2 OR v3), code CANNOT be "distributed" under an NDA, EXCEPT in the scenarios specified which would dictate an employment or service contract.

Again, in other countries, the laws may be different, but the scenarios discussed here deal mainly with US law and more specifically, New Jersey law.