Microsoft Releases Allegiance Game Source 91
Zenin writes "Microsoft has graciously released the source code to Allegiance for free on their site. Allegiance was released back in 2000, and rated the 'Best Game No One Played' by GameSpot - this little- known multiplayer space-combat/team-RTS was pretty innovative, yet never took off in the mainstream. Nevertheless it quickly developed a fanatical following - a dedicated community who reverse engineered the game to enable complete mods, expand server power, and much more. A million thanks to Joel 'solap' Dehlin and the rest of the Allegiance development team for making this happen!"
For your perusal (Score:5, Informative)
This Microsoft Research Shared Source license agreement ("MSR-SSLA") is a legal
agreement between you and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft" or "we") for the software
or data identified above, which may include source code, and any associated materials,
text or speech files, associated media and "online" or electronic documentation (together,
the "Software").
By installing, copying, or otherwise using this Software, found at
http://research.microsoft.com/downloads, you agree to be bound by the terms of this
MSR-SSLA. If you do not agree, do not install copy or use the Software. The Software is
protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and is licensed, not sold.
SCOPE OF RIGHTS:
You may use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, subject to the restrictions in
this License. Some purposes which can be non-commercial are teaching, academic
research, public demonstrations and personal experimentation. You may also distribute
this Software with books or other teaching materials, or publish the Software on
websites, that are intended to teach the use of the Software for academic or other non-
commercial purposes.
You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in any form for
commercial purposes. Examples of commercial purposes would be running business
operations, licensing, leasing, or selling the Software, distributing the Software for use
with commercial products or any other activity which purpose is to procure a commercial
gain to you or others.
If the Software includes source code or data, you may modify such portions of the
Software and distribute the modified Software for non-commercial purposes, as provided
herein.
You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the
Software. However, this right does not grant you a license to any of Microsoft's
copyrights or patents for anything you might create using such information.
In return, we simply require that you agree:
1. That you will not remove any copyright or other notices from the Software.
2. That if any of the Software is in binary format, you will not attempt to modify such
portions of the Software, or to reverse engineer or decompile them, except and
only to the extent authorized by law.
3. That if you distribute the Software or any derivative works of the Software, you
will distribute them under a verbatim copy of this License, and you will not grant
rights to the Software or derivative works that are broader than those provided by
this License. For example, you may not distribute modifications of the Software
under terms that would permit commercial use, or under terms that purport to
require the Software or such derivative works to be sublicensed to others.
4. That if you have modified the Software or created derivative works, and distribute
such modifications or derivative works, you will cause the modified files to carry
prominent notices so that recipients know that they are not receiving the original
Software. Such notices must state: (i) that you have changed the Software; and
(ii) the date of any changes.
5. That Microsoft is granted back, without any limitations and on a royalty free basis,
the rights to reproduce, install, use, modify, distribute and transfer your
modifications to the Software source code or data.
6. That any feedback about the Software provided by you to us is voluntarily given,
and Microsoft shall be free to use the feedback as it sees fit without obligation or
restriction of any kind, even if the feedback is designated by you as confidential.
7. THAT THE SOFTWARE COMES "AS IS", WITH NO WARRANTIES. THIS
MEANS NO EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY WARRANTY, INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ANY WARRANTY AGAINST
INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE SOFTWARE OR ANY
WA
Re:For your perusal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For your perusal (Score:3, Insightful)
It's very annoying that nobody's allowed to sell any derivatives but Microsoft. The GPL it ain't.
Re:For your perusal (Score:1, Funny)
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
Heh.
While a valid point, mine remains. Microsoft is the only one making money off this. That was the entirety of my point; not saying it's "evil" or "terrible" or any such.
Re:For your perusal (Score:1)
Kleedrac
Re:For your perusal (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, wow. You're gonna have to "hate to break it to" SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, Sun, Lindows, and a host of others, 'cause they're selling GPLed code right now!!
Seriously, though. GPL doesn't prevent selling.
Re:For your perusal (Score:5, Informative)
With more and more things like this being released into the public domain, with such restrictive licensing, Open Source developers are going to have to be more and more savvy to these licensing programs. It is an ideal way for microsoft to battle against the GPL. Release source code, but with very restrictive terms... Wait for some random GPL project to insert microsoft code... come down on project like a ton of bricks, discrediting GPL in the process.
Now consider what might happen if Microsoft were to release the source code to Windows in such a restrictive manner... Its going to be very tempting isnt it...
All I am saying is, we need to be really damn careful about stuff like this. Although it is nice that Microsoft are being a little more Open about things, beware of the beast.
Re:For your perusal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For your perusal (Score:5, Informative)
We (fan community) run our own Lobby (MS gave us the Lobby server a couple years ago) and our own servers. No pay-to-play anymore. Come back and enjoy!
Re:For your perusal (Score:5, Funny)
Suggesting Microsoft would do something nice just adds to my hypothesis of you being Lucifer.
Anyone care to say that I am wrong?
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
-molo
Re:For your perusal (Score:1, Informative)
I was recently in a situation where i took some GPLed code (two or three java files to open a browser window, cross-platform for windows, os x and unix-ish oses) and put it in our proprietary software, to quickly provide that functionality so we could try it and see how the features we needed th
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
HOW ABOUT- YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO USE GPL CODE IN A CLOSED SOURCE PRODUCT. None. It's not yours, you don't own it, to you, it's just not freely available.
I'm not flaming ya, what you said was highly insightful. I think that people need to stop using OSS as "freeware" and respect that it was given to you for free with certain rather minor restrictions. I have always found irony in people
Re:For your perusal (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure that Microsoft would be more than enthusiastic about turnabout. This is *precisely* what they've been complaining about with the GPL -- that it's risky that an engineer with a tight timeline might simply grab all that tanalizing open source sitting out in the open to solve a problem, then claim that the software was written by him. We have to play by the same rules that Microsoft does -- following rules on each side is only fair.
And if Microsoft incorporated, say, chunks of glibc into Windows's closed-source C runtime, I think it's a fair bet to say that the FSF would drag them through the coals both legally and from a PR standpoint.
Re:For your perusal (Score:4, Insightful)
Not one but two instances of content-free karma whoring! Amazing.
If you're not in a hurry to just download the archive [microsoft.com] (warning: this is fucking huge, specifically 511MB), let's take a closer look at some of the pertinent points of that licence:
My opinion (for all the piddling amount that an anonymous coward's opinion counts for)? Fuck this and find a Sourceforge [sourceforge.net] or Freshmeat [freshmeat.net] project to chip in on.
Re:For your perusal (Score:5, Insightful)
For any commercial software company to do this much is amazing, doubly so for a game company, and a hundred fold over for MS to do it. So this doesn't help you make a million bucks with "your" brand new video game or further the agenda of the misnamed FSF. So what? This release does exactly what it was intended to do and it does it extremely well: It allows those of us who love the game and have been working [alleg.net] hard [alleg.net] to [alleg.net] improve [rhps.org] it for years a huge new arsenal with which to go about said improvements.
If you want to make a brand new space sim free to the public, go right ahead; it lets you do that too.
But really, boo-*&^$!ing-hoo that perhaps you can't throw yet another app into a KitchenSink(tm) Linux install. Who cares? FreeBSD solved such simple issues very cleanly nearly a decade ago now with the ports system, why can't Linux?
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
Either way, yes, amazing, fabulous, and good.
I played the beta of the game, and it was quite interesting and entertaining. I never got the full version though for reasons I don't remember. Perhaps I'll check this out again.
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
What on earth are you talking about?
Ports provides zero legal benefits over any of the Linux network software distribution methods (apt, yum, etc).
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
The legal benifits this provides is that noone is making a second source from which the distribution fetches from, whereas in apt, yum etc its coming off a distribution server because someone rolled the
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
Just because most apt and yum users *do* happen to get packages from a single source does not mean that the system constrains you to doing so.
What dedicated fans (Score:2)
Free public space sim? Yup, got one'a'those... (Score:2)
Done [sourceforge.net], and without the licence restrictions on the code.
The artwork, however, is still a different matter. If I ever get rich I'll set up a well-connected ranch somewhere and fill it with digital art geeks tasked with polishing FOSS projects.
Re:For your perusal (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the probem here? Microsoft doesn't want you selling their game. Why should SuSE or Mandrake make money off of a product Microsoft paid for?
"If any of the Software is in binary format, you will not attempt to modify such portions of the Software, or to reverse engineer or decompile them, except and only to the extent authorized by law."
This is probably for the benefit of tech that MS has liscensed, but has not been given rights to distribute the source for. Most likely the reverse engineering for interoperability clause would apply here in the case that you were reverse engineering formats.
"Microsoft is granted back, without any limitations and on a royalty free basis, the rights to reproduce, install, use, modify, distribute and transfer your modifications to the Software source code or data."
Wow, that sounds just like the GPL (must give back modifications). Effects will be the same as the GPL, if you use it for personal (non-distributed) use, your modifications are your own (how will MS know about them), but if you ditribute it, they have rights to the changes.
If you breach this MSR-SSLA or if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software or anyone's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically and you shall destroy all of your copies of the Software immediately. Section 5 of this MSR-SSLA [the self-granting of unlimited distribution rights, just quoted] shall survive any termination of this license.
Again, this is the same as any liscense (GPL included). If you don't agree with the liscense or violate it, you aren't granted any additional rights (the rights to use the game, and distribute modifications) other than what copyright allows. The GPL does the exact same thing. The patents part it to protect against incidents like SCO. The Apache liscense has the same clause.
Re:For your perusal (Score:4, Informative)
Repeat 20 times for good measure.
No, they aren't. That's exactly the point. Even if MS doesn't know about them, it's still theirs, by the letter and spirit of that clause.Re:For your perusal (Score:3, Interesting)
No, they aren't "theirs". They are still yours, to do with as you please, save for allowing MS to do with as they please as well (should they even care). You aren't handing copyright over to MS of your work, only agreeing that MS may use it gratias(sp?) as well. But MS can't restrict your usage of your copyrighted code in other projects or restrict is use by others b
Not entirely (Score:2)
Read the license again. They own their piece of code, and grant you the right to non-commercially distribute it. If you agree to the licence, they also own any modifications you may make to it, but this ownership is not exclusive of yours. You can still do what you like with you
Re:For your perusal (Score:3, Insightful)
Except with the GPL you get compensation in kind with what the free software community receives (ie: the code becomes free for all). With the MS license, MS can use your code to make money, but you can't use theirs to make money.
In other words, the GPL is an equal two-way street, while MS's is a one-way street in which they have allowed a few pedestrians to walk in the opposite direction.
How would you feel if you enhanced this game only t
License not *quite* that innocent or a turnaround (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, the rights granted to *non*-Microsoft entities are much more restrictive -- non-commercial only.
Effectively, this makes you a free coder for Microsoft -- the only company that can ever financially benefit from the code you produce is Microsoft.
This is *not* a turnaround for Microsoft (other than the fact that they are opening some of their own code, which is a change). From a commercial standpoint, they are giving up zero IP (they do not allow you to use copyrighted or patented information, which may be present in their release. This is very different from the GPL, where copyrighted data must be available for commercial use, and you *cannot* have patents on methods used in the software. Microsoft has previously promoted BSD-like licenses that would allow them profit. This license is notable in that it is GPL-incompatible.
From a strategic point of view, there is little Microsoft stands to risk here. The program is, as others have pointed out, written in DirectX, and would be difficult to port to anything other than Windows (well, perhaps other than the X-Box). It might assist a small amount in improving WINE, but that's about it.
I'm not sure whether this includes a data file release -- this is the only thing that weirds me out, as doing so would be extremely unusual. I would expect not, but ~600 MB seems excessive for source code alone. Perhaps if someone could check this out?
That being said, I'm certainly not going to complain -- I see very few ways in which we are worse off after this release. This is a clear win for former fans and players of the game. Microsoft *has* done a few notable things that I would not have expected of them. They have not placed legal restrictions on porting, though there may be a practical limitation. I suppose one could argue that Microsoft is hoping to start a trend of companies doing open-source releases chosing not to use the GPL, but that seems a bit conspiracy theory-oriented even for Slashdot.
The only concern I can think of is Microsoft's worries about PR with this move. It may not be much of an issue -- recently, there has been a good amount of business hyping of "open source". Microsoft hasn't been bashing "open source" much in the past year or so -- just the GPL. It's a reasonable supposition that this has been intentional from a strategic standpoint.
Another weird thing is that Microsoft Research is the organization doing the release. That's very, very odd. I strongly suspect that Microsoft Research is *not* where the entertainment division is located (Bungie isn't a subdivision of Microsoft Reesearch), so unless they are responsible for old software, I can't see why they're involved. Could be that they're a bit more academia-oriented, and that there's some scientist pushing for open-sourcing something that doesn't have significant IP value to Microsoft any more.
If Microsoft wants to test the waters for non-GPL open source possibilities, this is a very good, safe way for them to do so. This game still has active users. Game technology moves so quickly that a four-year-old-game has little that folks might steal from them -- and in any case, Microsoft is not releasing any of their previous IP.
I *really* wish Microsoft would open-source the Close Combat series (they probably don't own copyright on it, but it's a nice thought). Microsoft or no, I'd be willing to buy copies of all of the series if I could get an open source Linux-compatible copy -- that series is phenomenal.
NPL, not MPL (Score:3, Informative)
Re:License not *quite* that innocent or a turnarou (Score:2)
Allegiance was created as a testing ground for new game technologies, in particular DirectPlay. The fact it grew into a commercial product at all is more luck/evolution then design. It's also one of the reasons why it had such bad marketing (say what else you will, MS Games has a fantastic marketing group...which sadly didn't touch Allegiance).
The
Re:For your perusal (Score:4, Insightful)
Better to focus on what it doesn't prevent you from doing, I say. I see nothing there that prevents me from porting it to Linux, for example. Nor do I see anything preventing me from redistributing it, as long is it's not for a commercial purpose.
This is a big step for MS, and an important one, I think. We should not discourage them.
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
Non-commercial distros could use it, right?
Welcome to Australia (Score:2)
Handy fact: Australian law authorises us to reverse engineer stuff completely, and there's no American law against us importing the reverse-engineered pieces back into DubyaLand, as long as we do it as per the terms of Microsoft's licence.
That said, if Allegience was a DirectX testbed then porting it to Open
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
If you feel the need to disagree with this license, make your voice heard via the statistics Microsoft collects in their license webform. Click "no". As tempting as it might be to download the software and port it to Linux, as someone mentioned, don't do it -- if you don't agree with the license.
If you are OK with Micro$oft potentially using your contributions for profit royalty free, go ahead and contribute. No one will begrudge you. It's your choice.
Re:For your perusal (Score:2)
Kleedrac
Re:The License to the code (Score:1, Offtopic)
Sorry for the dupe, mod down if you like!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Best Game Nobody Played for a Reason. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Best Game Nobody Played for a Reason. (Score:2)
It wasn't just that it needed a connection. I could play all other games, MechWarrior 4, Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament...all that was perfectly fine to play, through the firewall.
In order to play Allegiance, I would had either had to hook my box up outside the wall and leave a port open on it, or leave a port open on the firewall.
Firewall (Score:1)
In order to play Allegiance, I would had either had to hook my box up outside the wall and leave a port open on it, or leave a port open on the firewall.
I may misunderstand you, but in order to play any game as the server, you need to leave a port open on a firewall.
Re:Firewall (Score:2)
DirectX: Ports Required to Play on a Network [microsoft.com]
Allegiance Error Message: Your Connection to the Game Server Was Lost [microsoft.com]
Allegiance Error Message: Failed to Connect to the Lobby [microsoft.com]
If they are using UPnP on their NAT router it should just "work" and an (almost) unlimited number of players can play fro
Because nobody has yet played it. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Because nobody has yet played it. (Score:3, Informative)
Allegiance is a multiplayer-only game and requires servers that once were hosted only by MS. The game has changed so drastically since that demo there's no way it would even be able to connect to the modern lobby server. -For starters you'd need to teak your reg just to try as the current lobby and auto-update servers aren't hosted by MS anymore.
The real game is a smaller download then most modern demos anyway, so just pick it up from http://www.FreeAlle
Re:Because nobody has yet played it. (Score:2)
I installed the demo in Windows XP and it works fine. I'm very impressed with the training missions so far. I look forward to getting into the rest of the demo and then the real version.
Re:Because nobody has yet played it. (Score:1)
here [fifthround.com]
We are having some server problems right now, but some servers are up. Check out the forums for more info.
Ahead of its Time? (Score:1)
Um, and coincidentally it's just had its source released
Re:Ahead of its Time? (Score:1)
Re:Ahead of its Time? (Score:2)
No, you're not. There was some trial functionality, but Microsoft generally expected people to pony up a monthly fee on par with most MMORPGs. Allegiance required a central server with some decent bandwidth at the time, because it supported a relatively large number of players per game session.
Re:Ahead of its Time? (Score:1, Informative)
I never bought the retail version after the beta was over, so I'm not 100% sure what the final decision was, but Microsoft's original plan was to have 2 types of servers:
1) Community run, free servers to play ala Counter-Strike, Quake and the like. That way you could play and not pay monthly fees.
2) Monthly fees for access to Micorosft run servers that would include persistent stats, rankings, ladder tourneys, clans, etc... Basically a
Re:Ahead of its Time? (Score:3, Informative)
Eventually they made the AZ free too...then a bit later dropped the AZ servers so it was only community hosted servers...then a bit later dropped the lobby and we had to create a utility that routed "local lan" DPlay connections to servers out on the internet (SOVRoute). Some time later MS gave the community the Lobby server install and some other toys and we got the FreeZone lobby back up on your own hardware.
Currently, as has b
Re:Ahead of its Time? (Score:1)
Re:Ahead of its Time? (Score:2)
However, w/o source we've been supporting the game for years now. Head over to Free Allegiance [freeallegiance.com] and pick it up from the downloads section.
NOTE: Sadly...just as MS released this source to us, we had some serious hicups in the main lobby servers and auto-update server. They are offline at the moment (no, not
Linux Port? (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, I don't see anything denying the ability to create a Linux port. Is this right? I must admit I'm very surprised to hear this. I've never heard of this game, but I'm intrigued by the fact that Microsoft is releasing source code to the public!
Is this some sort of trick? I find it ironic that microsoft is giving allegiance to open source. Sure, it's not free (as in liberated), but it's a step in the right direction.
Re:Linux Port? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linux Port? (Score:2, Informative)
The giving the source was in repsonse to the still going strong community
Re:Linux Port? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, it is a DirectX game. I haven't looked through it yet, but i would assume they used DirectInput, DirectSound ect in addition to Direct3D. So moving it over would not be a trivial task.
Re:Linux Port? (Score:2)
Re:Linux Port? (Score:5, Informative)
So yes, it's heavily Direct biased, likely including "beta" versions of some DirectX pieces that won't map directly to any real DirectX release. If this makes it harder to port (unknown/never published DirectX features) or easier (above are in the Allegiance code and thus come with it), we don't know yet.
Re:Linux Port? (Score:2)
ALIEN (A Lawyer I Am Not)
Any modifications you make to it can be sold by Microsoft, but not you.
It looks like they can even "embrace and extend" your modifications without giving their modifications back.
Prediction: Microsoft will release their stable kernel under this Shared Source license within the next two years. What do they have to lose?
-metric
Re:Linux Port? (Score:3, Insightful)
time and effort.
who in the open source community would buy a commercial version of a free toy? unless of course, the commercial version sported worthwhile content not available for free. in that case, who cares if microsoft is putting worthwhile content onto linux?
more likely, they wouldn't advertise a linux port the same way they didn't advertise the windows version, so they'd just be throwing more time and money at a project that would ultimately be a loss. if they weren'
Nintendo Releases Virtual Boy Game Source Code (Score:4, Funny)
From Nintendo VP of Open Source, "We feel that we're doing the world a service by releasing such a popular game to the masses for their free consumption and alteration."
Linus Torvalds says, "The open source community has a new friend in Nintendo. Of course, releasing a free dev kit for the gamecube would be nice, but this... this is even better. We can now program for the virtual boy."
Slashdot user TechBoy880 had this to say, "My life is now complete... I can now mod my favorite game of all time. Now we just need to press Nintendo to release the hardware specs and a dev kit to go along with this..."
Re:Nintendo Releases Virtual Boy Game Source Code (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, it had problems because of that last part--even the slightest bit of griefing or rambo
Re:Nintendo Releases Virtual Boy Game Source Code (Score:2, Informative)
Nintendo needs to step up here.
WineX (Score:3, Interesting)
Shame it doesn't happen more. (Score:4, Insightful)
I would like to see it happen much more often.
They can't be making money off this game anymore, so why not give back to the community.
Let those who love the game make it better, or atlest better to them.
Relic recently released the source to HomeWorld 1, and i know many people (including myself to a small extent) have been pouring through it to implement the features that we thought should be in the game. Right click movement, better combat, simpler camera control, better UI, ect.
The multiplayer nature of Allegaince may make it less friendly to such changes, but i do look forward to seeing the creativity of the community at work. (and who knows, an allegiance single player campaign may come from this)
Re:Shame it doesn't happen more. (Score:2)
Are they getting rid of the arbitrary plane that sets the camera movement stops at a 90 degree pole and that all ships level to? I understand you might need to define a plane when executing movement commands, and I accept the sp
Nice! (Score:3, Interesting)
My respect for MS just jumped up a notch... Still negative, but closer to zero.
Tight Code! (Score:2)
Re:Tight Code! (Score:4, Informative)
95% of the source zip is media...
What is really interesting... (Score:1)
For those of us who spent hours trying to mod alleg working on getting KGJV's tools to know what they were doing this is a great win. For Joel Dehlin, the creator of allegiance and all around great guy this is a great win, as his pet project will continue to grow. For the players who never gave up on the best game never supported, this is a great win.
And for me,
Re:What is really interesting... (Score:1)
'Tisn't. Golgotha (admittedly a work in progress) was released PD after Crack.com folded.
Re:What is really interesting... (Score:1)
*cough cough*
Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters
*cough cough*
I reviewed this game for a magazine - Perfect (Score:2)
This game was the most perfect, ever, in the execution of achieving what it wanted to do. In terms of fulfilling a tremendous diversity of player desires, in terms of graphical beauty, in terms of growing intensity, in terms of fostering teamwork....
In this game, you could:[ul] [li] Command 20 individuals from an isometric view point and move your bases and mining ships through galaxies while charting
A review of the original game (Score:2)
To make a great PC game these days, developers need to master five elements: Graphics, gameplay, design depth, artificial intelligence and sound effects. But the most valuable facet of truly successful games remains human interaction. With the maturing of the Internet and the advent of broadband access, Microsoft Research has subtly made human interaction, both cooperative and competitive, the brightest light in the starry sky of its inaugural title, Allegi