Myth 2 Server Goes Open Source 157
iMacGuy writes: "As announced on Bungie.net, the Myth 2 Internet Server will be shutting down on February 15. However, they have released the source code. It runs on Linux currently, and can be ported to Windows, *BSD, and Mac OS X."
Good job... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully other companies will take bungie.net's lead and release server software as well. In my mind, it can't hurt the company (although some way will probably be pointed out to me
Or this might just be my ever idealistic mind... Til later.
Re:Good job... (Score:1)
Re:Good job... (Score:1)
Re:Good job... (Score:1)
do you think microsoft will release the code for win95? just a thought
Re:Good job... (Score:1)
Re:Good job... (Score:1)
Good job... by Microsoft :-) (Score:1)
Microsoft bought Bungie. Look at the copyright notice at the bottom of the article on bungie.net:
© 2002 Bungie Studios / Microsoft Corporation
Glad to see Microsoft getting the appreciation they deserve when they do something right.
Re:Good job... by Microsoft :-) (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good job... (Score:1)
I agree. This was a very generous decision and their customers will respect them more for it.
Re:Good job... (Score:1)
I hate to act like the Grammar Nazi, but I can't help feeling the word you wanted was
It's always worth checking with www.dictionary.com [dictionary.com]
Myth == Gaming System, for those of you who wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Anyway, Myth II is a gaming environment. Here's the story from the Myth Vault on bungie.net web site, in case it gets
Myth Game Server Open Source
February 7, 2002
By Mordia
Nothing in this world is permanent, and this must also be said of gaming servers. Over the past five years many of you have enjoyed the thrill of playing the Myth games online, as well as experienced the pains of a downed server or a rank reset. Ah! Memories! The time has come, however, to bid farewell to the old and tired Myth II game server.
We are finally and officially closing the doors on the Myth gaming servers for all time. Myth II online's last day will be Friday, February 15.
However, we realize that by doing so we leave a lot of people without a place to call home. So, what we intend to do is give it to you. Any of you who want it. The server that is. On this site you will find downloadable the Myth II metaserver source code. Do with it what you will!
Want to be an admin? Go for it! Want to make your own ranking system? Everything you need to do so is here. Have a yen for a custom WW2 server? You can make it!
This is the raw Myth II metaserver source code, stripped of a few proprietary bits of code, but still run-able. You can modify it in any way you want and use it for most anything you want. The only real conditions are that you don't then try to sell it and that you leave all the copyright and other legal notices with the code. Be sure to read the short, but very legal license agreement that comes with it before going nuts, but afterwards, go nuts.
The Myth Vault site will serve as a central location for the Myth game server development community, with a forum for people interested in discussing the code and the possibilities. In the future this site may also offer links to fan run servers, leader boards, order databases, whatever--that's all up to you.
Really great Myth Mods (Score:2)
not open source! (Score:1)
Then it's not open source. It's in the category which the FSF calls "semi-free", and admits is better than not-at-all-free, which Debian calls "non-free" but still puts on their servers for download, and which the fanatics at OSI simply reject as not-open-source, period.
License is not OSD compatible (Score:4, Informative)
It's really too bad the Open Source trademark was rejected, because tactics like this lead to a lot of genuine confusion about what open source software really means.
They don't claim that it's Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, "Open Source" was a crappy certification mark in the first place, because it's too descriptive.
-russ
They do claim that it's open source (Score:3, Informative)
Second of all, even if the mislabeling is only in the slashdot headline, I still have a legitimate case that labeling this software "open source" is incorrect. This is not like hacker vs. cracker where a minority is trying to redefine a term from the majority. The term open source was popularized by OSI and most people, when they see "open source", do think of the OSI meaning.
So, for anyone, slashdot editor or Microsoft, to mislabel this software as "open source" is misleading, whether intentional or not.
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:1)
There is a limit to the news headlines on our web system for formatting reasons. So, the author put it in brief terms. The intent was to announce that the source code to the Myth 2 metaserver was available, i.e., the source that was closed is now open.
At any rate, most people outside of the Open Source community don't seem to associate the same meaning that slashdot users usually do to the phrase. And I don't think it is misleading, since the news article specifically directs you to the license to get the exact terms of the source. It isn't like it is some big consipiracy to hide the terms of the license.
-Tom
Bungie.net System Overlord
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:2)
No, you're not trying to hide the terms of the license. But by describing it as "Open Source" you are lying. I won't ascribe motive, I don't really believe you had any motive other than the one you give, but nonetheless the effect of tolerating such untruths is not to hide the terms of licenses like yours, but rather to dilute and obscure the meaning of the term Open Source.
I've never played your game, but I think it's great that you're releasing the code, even under such a restrictive license. You are to be applauded for that act. But you are certainly not to be applauded for diluting or obscuring the meaning of the term you are misusing.
Allow me to, respectfully, suggest that you should correct the error forthwith. I might suggest "Myth Server Code Released" or something similar. There are plenty of headlines that will fit in that space and still be true - unfortunately the one that was chosen is not.
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:1)
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:1)
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:2)
It's not a "slashdoters definition" - it's The Open Source Definition [opensource.org] - defined by the guys that made up the term and popularised it. One of the conditions for considering source truly Open is that the license does not discriminate against people in particular fields of endeavor - which means that "for non-commercial use only" is not Open.
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:2)
Sheesh, talk about misguided fanaticism.
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:1)
"open source" is trademarked, with the intent of protecting the term against the sort of misuse exemplified in Bungie's announcement.
Source Available (Score:2)
-russ
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:2)
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:2)
- Sam
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:3, Insightful)
IIRC, the trademark was refused, and even if it wasn't, no one here at
It never fails to amuse me how one minute people here are complaining that they can't call something killustrator, because adobe has trademarked the common word illustrator, but then they insist that people can't call source code that is open open source without pissing off the OpenSource nazi's..
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:1)
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:2)
-russ
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:1)
I don't let the OSI tell me what to think. Open Source means, pure and simple, code to which you are able to get your hands on the source. The license applied to the software tells you what to do with it. Since the beginning of commercial software there have been software programs which were distributed only in binary form, some which were distributed only as source (the nature of certain mainframe operating systems blurred the distinction anyway.) There have also been many many non-free packages to which you could get the source if you paid for the software.
The fact that the majority of Unix admins are admins first and coders second (due to the fact that Unix systems have grown increasingly both more complex and prevalent, and software has become more complicated as well) has reduced this tendency. Most of the people who could really code are just coding now, and many non-programmers (like myself) have been doing the Admin jobs.
While being a hardcore programmer will help any administrator of an open source platform (keep in mind that it was once possible to get source code to SunOS, in the early 4.x days and before) because you can take a stab at figuring out why the OS is failing, or why your (open source) program is conflicting with chunks of your (open source) OS. These days, though, most people don't even know how to get useful information out of core files, let alone read the kernel sources in a meaningful fashion. The fact that the modern kernels do more, and thus have a more complex codebase, doesn't help.
So before you get all pissed at /. for misleading you by calling this thing open source, consider that it IS open source, but it has a restrictive license.
Re:They do claim that it's open source (Score:2)
-russ
Re:They don't claim that it's Open Source (Score:2)
Re:They don't claim that it's Open Source (Score:2)
-russ
Re:License is not OSD compatible (Score:1)
Putting OSI aside, I wonder if it would be more helpful to say that the source is Open (as in transparent) but not Free (as in speech since it is restricted).
at least the FSF admits it's "semi-free" (Score:1)
they do (wrongly) claim it's open source (Score:1)
I can read, thank you, but maybe you can't.
bungie has not open sourced anything (Score:1)
No they haven't. In my book, they haven't open sourced anything. Maybe in your book, they have. But whether or not they have open sourced anything is a point of debate, not an open and shut case.
why stop there? (Score:3, Funny)
hell, why stop there? i've always wanted a Myth 2 server that'd run through my hotsync cradle, or, alternatively, through my official sega broadband adaptor.
Re:why stop there? (Score:1)
Re:why stop there? (Score:2)
Now, if I had a C128, maybe I could do both at the same time...
We may be seeing a Myth 3 server soon. (Score:1)
Re:We may be seeing a Myth 3 server soon. (Score:1)
In other words... (Score:1, Funny)
Bungie is owned by Microsoft, this must mean that Microsoft is finally embracing Open Source!
Re:In other words... (Score:1)
Re:In other words... (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Ah, *that* license! (Score:2)
-russ
not so fast (Score:1)
Re:not so fast (Score:1)
More like (Score:1)
Atleast it is something... (Score:1)
If nothing else, maybe someone can create a game that is compatiable with it that is true open source.
From what I've seen in game development, the server is alot harder than the client in most cases.
And it is still more open source than alot of things are...:)
BWP
I Wonder What the Higher-Ups will think.. (Score:4, Interesting)
BlackGriffen
it's not really open source (Score:3, Informative)
If you read the license [bungie.net] you'll find that the code is licensed for "non-commercial purposes only", so it's not open source in the sense of the OSD [opensource.org].
I'd rather have them publish the source code than not, but I'm disappointed that it's mislabeled as an "open source" release, when it's not.
Re:it's not really open source (Score:1)
license is fine; labeling is not (Score:1)
Look, buddy, I'm not saying their license is wrong. In fact, I think their non-commercial license is the right choice in this situation.
My beef is with their inaccurate labeling of this software as "open source". As others [slashdot.org] have pointed out, they can easily use another headline like "Myth Server Code Released" that wouldn't confuse people about what open source stands for.
Given that Myth is owned by Microsoft, it would be all too easy to suggest that the headline is meant to be intentionally confusing, but I think I'll go to sleep now instead of beating this horse further.
Re:license is fine; labeling is not (Score:1)
Just because you think I've lost doesn't mean I'll stop fighting.
I agree with you, though, on the fact that there is a battle.
Re:I Wonder What the Higher-Ups will think.. (Score:1)
linux? (Score:2, Interesting)
isn't Bungie a MS-owned company (i belive they were bought out so that Halo would go on X-Box)
Re:linux? (Score:1)
See http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/21/15492
Well, the plot does thicken (Score:1)
Re:linux? (Score:1)
a) They were going bankrupt and looking to sell
b) MS wanted a top flight gaming company to produce exclusives.
That's pretty much it.
Re:linux? (Score:1)
Alternate Myth/Myth II server... (Score:3, Informative)
mh
This same for Myth III (Score:2)
I image that it would be highly unlikely. Given that there are proprietary bits of code not being released with the Myth II server, and work is still continuing on Warcraft III, there may be some overlaping in the engines that they don't want to spill.
MythIII = Bungie // WarcraftIII = Blizzard (Score:2)
Is the confusion because they both abbreviate their online services b.net?
CORRECT MY POST (Score:2)
I meant to say Halo. Bits of code from Myth III may have found their way over to Halo. I know they're different in many respects, but there's a good chance that two projects being worked on side by side can share a lot of code. And since Micro$oft is the parent...
Re:CORRECT MY POST (Score:1)
Re:CORRECT MY POST (Score:1)
Clan Plaid [clanplaid.net] started as a Myth Clan way back and are spread across the US.
Myth II? (Score:1, Offtopic)
(Ba-Dum. Dum. Ksssh!)
Bah, mod me down for that. I deserve it.
Re:It's too bad I can't make use of this (Score:1, Offtopic)
A Great Game, then AND now (Score:3, Funny)
If your soldier is right up against an enemy, and you have another soldier behind him, he can't do squat in terms of attack -- he's got to walk around. Team formation is something that is thus extremely important for success in this game. Most RTS that I've played haven't exactly figured this out yet, and just how much fun it is. True, it's kind of a pain, but once you've gotten over the learning curve, it starts to make sense "which general should win" given the tactics s/he uses.
The use of land formations was revolutionary for its time. "High ground" really meant something in terms of firing range. Your dwarves can fire almost the entire screen length if they're tossing into a valley. Your archers start to look pretty good, too.
And then there was the idea of veterans. This was pretty cool. Essentially, you'd get "your team" from the last battle (if you'd won), and they'd get shields for each of their kills. The more shields, the more accurate they'd be when killing again. Of course, the "newbies" are hilarious (and frustrating, too): sometimes, you'd get a dwarf that would desimate (sp) his entire team by chucking a grenade straight up! LOL
I never got particularly good at multiplayer Myth, because I came into the scene about a year after the game had been released; instead, I contented myself by beating other newbies.
I haven't tried Myth 3 either, so I can't speak for it. Myth 2 is a great game. If you can find it for $10, give it a go -- it's worth it.
(I don't work for Bungie, I'm just a big fan.)
Re:A Great Game, then AND now (Score:1)
Re:A Great Game, then AND now (Score:2)
But my passion has always been "how is it that one team wins in a battle." In Red ALert, we'd try this by just having a mano-a-mano kind of match (no buildings or anything), but what ends up happening is that whoever has more units wins. In Myth, that's totally not the case. It's whoever knows how to control their units best that wins.
You learn to use the terrain, the strengths of your units, and formations to win.
People coming straight from Starcraft often get pummeled in Myth -- simply because they've learned how to throw all their men in at once. That works in SC, because it's all about "overwhelming force." In Myth, that kind of thing is suicide.
Only game I've played for 4 years (Score:1)
I've played Starcraft a bit, but I lost interest. I am just not a fast enough clicker to do well. Myth has tactics. In Starcraft the general idea is to develop as many units and as powerful as possible... you out number your opponent(or out tech him) and beat him. In Myth every player has the same amount of units. But a good player(not really me) can beat a new player without taking much losses. When you play on Myth you will recognize other players after playing a few games with them. Sometimes, especially if you play with certain groups of people, you may spent a half hour chatting before the game.. when a typical game is only 12 minutes or so.
Myth also has a lot of plugins and new scenarios that people have made. A recent one "The 7th God" was 18 new co-op levels(the original game have only 25). People modify the physics and do strange and interesting things... the game has not got old for me.
As much as a fan boi of bungie that I am, I admit they aren't perfect. Companies like Blizzard have ported some older games to Mac OS X. I look forward to playing Halo on the mac, but I also think that after Halo no titles will be coming to the PC/Mac. I get the impression Bungie has learned that developing for 1 console is a lot easier than figuring out the bugs that occur on thousands of different PC configurations.
Myth 2 (Score:1)
So what if Microsoft owns Bungie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, Microsoft owns Bungie. No, Micorosoft does not normally release their source code. Yes, Myth II's server runs on Linux.
Am I missing something? I ask because I fail to see the dilemma, or surprise, or whatever it is that has people hot and bothered in this situation.
First off, Microsoft does not immediately impose a Win32 regime on companies it acquires. They do not operate on their image, or on a basis of "we hate Open Source and Linux." They operate for profit, and killing software that's already been implemented simply to show off that they don't need Linux or Open Source is not profitable. MS acquired Hotmail a long time ago IIRC, and they're still dependent on FreeBSD servers for some of it. Bungie wrote their server for Linux (whether before or after they were acquired by MS) and there is no point in forcing them to develop it for Windows instead. Also, the fact that Bungie has given away the code to that server does not imply that Microsoft is "embracing" Open Source, it simply means that someone decided keeping the official servers up was too expensive, but that it would be shitty to just cut people off, and that releasing the source code could only make profits go up (see the bargain bin thing in another post). I'm sure Microsoft has no problem with anything that does not cut into profit and could potentially increase it.
The argument that could be made is that image does indeed affect people's esteem of and confidence in MS, but in this case we're not dealing with MS directly but a subsidiary company. Bungie releasing source code does not hurt MS's ego. If MS released the code to FrontPage or WinXP, that would be different... but they haven't.
Re:So what if Microsoft owns Bungie? (Score:2, Informative)
- The Myth games are actually owned by Take 2 Interactive... Take 2 got Myth and Oni because then owned 20% of Bungie at the time of the buyout. Bungie's Online team runs the bungie.net metaserver still, though. The point, though, is that Bungie/MS makes no money off of Myth sales... that would all go to Take 2 Interactive.
- The license for the code is rather simplistic, basically just saying you can't use it commercially, and keeping copyright notices, etc. Other than that, I'm pretty sure it is fair game. Some of you here will no doubt point out it isn't "Open Source" in the truest sense. However, one of the primary goals of the license is allowing people to improve the code while not forcing sharing of such changes. One of the big reasons for this is because if you try to put a ranking system in there, it is desirable in most cases to hide the specifics of that system so that users can't stack the deck to artifically inflate their rankings. There are other issues of course, but that is one that I remember being brought up. The point is that a license forcing sharing of every change is not appropriate for this software.
- As for the "no commerical purposes" clause, well, let me just say this: bungie.net was always offered for free. Every copy of Myth 2 got you a bungie.net account. To me, it seems wrong to allow people to use something that was offered for free by us and now charge for it.
Well, I guess if any of you are Myth 2 players, or are just curious, I recommend checking out bungie.net's Myth Vault [bungie.net]. Ask questions on the forum, or post them in our FUQ (frequently unanswered questions) database.
-Tom
Bungie.net System Overlord
Re:So what if Microsoft owns Bungie? (Score:1)
Maybe that's because if they did the servers would collapse under the load?
Only in the last year has Hotmail started using Microsoft software for mail transfer (at about the same time as messages started taking longer to be delivered).
Don't forget the original... (Score:2)
If you haven't tried the new Aleph One builds of Marathon, they allow you to play the original game with full OpenGL goodness and add many things that makers of new scenarios (yes, many people are still building Marathon scenarios) can take advantage of such as real 3D models (remember, the original is sprite based) and scripting, as well as a few hundred other improvements; check the Engine Development section of their site. There is also the M1A1 project at http://bighouse.bungie.org/m1/ [bungie.org]which allows you to play Marathon 1 on the A1 engine (Mac OS X and Mac OS only, and closed source due to the use of Bungie art, sorry)
Re:Don't forget the original... (Score:1)
1. The Mac OS X version doesn't work very well; however, the stuff in CVS works great.
2. M1A1 is now available for the SDL version of Aleph, too.
Misinformation (Score:2)
Open Source -- low\no profit alternative (Score:1)
While you can't force a company to work for nothing they shouldnt impede people who want to continue a product beyond its profitable life time.
Even though the computer market is competative, the speed of innovation and the ability of your competitors must make old abandonned code of little threat and great public relations. I'm more likely to buy from a company that has a longer life cycle for their games. In reality, if I own a modern computer, I'm more than likely going to be tempted into modern games -- but I will buy from a production house that remembers its costomers first.
bo
Bungie has done this before (Score:1)
It may be shocking to see an MS-owned subsidiary release "open source" code, but it is not a new development from Bungie, per se. Just before they were purchased by MS, Bungie released the source code to their previous software dynasty called Marathon (see, Marathon Open Source [bungie.org] for news on how that has worked out).
Since Bungie started out as more or less a Mac-only developer, there was a lot of vocal panic in the Mac community when Bungie was bought by Microsoft. Bungie's CEO and other employees insisted that MS had bought them with an understanding that they would not change Bungie's working culture, and would give Bungie a good deal of latitude to do things how they'd always done them--just do them for MS first. ;-)
Bungie open sourced a legacy game before being absorbed by MS, now they've open sourced a legacy game afterwards. So, it's probably not a radical change in MS policy, like some people are wondering. What this does do is lend more credibility to the Halo on PC/Mac promises that Bungie has made--after the X-Boxes have shipped enough units. :-)
Feeling oddly nostalgic (Score:1)
I quit playing about the time M$ bought them out, and there was this incredible feeling in the community of betrayal, since Bungie had always been a Mac-first game developer (they had developed Marathon, a pretty damn good FPS when there was none available for the Mac).
It feels a bit like my old high school is being torn down. (sniff, sniff)
Hats off to all the players, mapmakers, webmasters, mod creators(especially Santa's Head), and anyone else who made that goofy game a great experience.
-adso (known on b.net as.... adso)
Question about Open Source License (Score:2)
On the Open Source site there is the Apple Public License source Agreement. Please look at sections 1.8 and 2.1. It is stated explicitly that the Apple sources cannot be used in a commercial setting. Comparing that to the Microsoft Broad Source license the same is said.
Now why is the Apple Public License considered Open Source and not the Microsoft? I am seriously asked because I am release some Open Source myself and found this aspect boggling.
finishing the job... (Score:2)
They violate the letter, perhaps, but that is the spirit. Thanks Bungie!
/Brian
I took at look at the code.. (Score:2)
I dislike the comercial clause, but I wonder how legal a clause like that really is.
As far as I know, copyright is what covers source code, and copyright merely restricts duplication, not use. You can't write a book and put a clause that restricts how the information in the book is used. If Coke published a manual of operation for it's business then someone could start another Cola company based on those procedures, as long as they legally bought the number of copies of the book they needed. They could even publish a seperate book with changes that apply to the first book, as long as the second book didn't violate fair use.
This is why no one has ever taken the GPL to court, because if you won the case and broke the GPL, then you would lose the right to redistribute GPL code. It is a form of legal kung foo, using the oppenents strength against them.
What I am going to do is do the first step of a black box implementation. I will take this code and write up a full spec in the next 2 months. It will fully explain every aspect of operation of a Myth II server. Someone else can then use my work to implement a myth II server that is fully open.
I am wondering if we need to add a new clause to the GPL to make sure that any client that is connected to a GPL'ed server is allowed to access that servers code as well. It seems to me that these
Re:Hooray! I bet thats a complex set of code. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you think it was "movies on computer," you probably weren't a very good player. Ah, the joys of King of the Hill on Venice, with the WW2 plugin... your squad gets torn apart in about 5 minutes but you can still hold the flag long enough to win. "Woot" and stuff.
In fact it was Bungie's networking code for Myth II that was so good [macworld.com] it was originally a replacement for, and later became a new version of, Apple's net gaming library (NetSprockets).
Re:Hooray! I bet thats a complex set of code. (Score:2, Informative)
"In fact it was Bungie's networking code for Myth II that was so good [macworld.com] it was originally a replacement for, and later became a new version of, Apple's net gaming library (NetSprockets)."
Actually that isn't quite true. Bungie and Apple worked on the networking library together (the legendary Uber project) but the library's history is rather mirky here. Apple later took Project Uber and released it under their Public Source license as the "OpenPlay" library.
Unfortunately the code was in such a bad way that it's taken a very long time for anyone to do anything useful on it. Some volunteers have wrappet NetSprocket on top of OpenPlay. And that is where most of it's usefulness lies.
Re:Hooray! I bet thats a complex set of code. (Score:1)
Re:Hooray! I bet thats a complex set of code. (Score:1)
I think you're confusing Myth with Myst.
Re:Warcraft III? (Score:1)
Re:Good for them, but what about Warcraft III? (Score:4, Informative)
This doesn't mean they're opening the Myth II engine; it just means that when bungie.net isn't running a Myth II server, people who want to play online can still do so.
Re:Not true. (Score:4, Informative)
Ironically enough, the literal content of your post is correct. It's not true. The code is being released, but not, as the headline claims, as open source.
Re:Bungie.net are a bunch of fucking nazis (Score:1)