Multi Theft Auto - San Andreas Goes Open Source 127
dan writes " Multi Theft Auto is a third-party modification for Rockstar's hit title Grand Theft Auto San Andreas — and it has become open-source after over four years of closed source development. As a (somewhat) regular player of MTA since the early days of GTAIII, this hit me by surprise, somewhat." (The news is on the project's front page, from which dan extracts more details, below.)
dan continues: "Some of the interesting parts of the post: 'Today we are marking a new milestone in the history of Multi Theft Auto. After over 11000 revisions since 2004, contributions by over 16 world-wide developers, 1554 files and well over 550.000 lines of mostly C/C++ code, we have made the decision to re-launch Multi Theft Auto as an open-source project.By open sourcing our project, we are encouraging anyone who is willing to participate in this project, to participate. For that reason, we are not 'just' offering our source code: we have also opened our bug tracker and will be offering public access to our nightly build system that will be compiling a build every day (and has been long used for testing purposes). This way, any developer will be able to run the latest revisions, file bugs or submit patches.
This is particularly exciting given that the released source is based upon the MTA Blue core, which in theory can be applied to any single player game. The source will no doubt be useful and provide foundations for future projects and the progression of the mod itself.'"
Can you go head to head? Can you use cheats? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to call up a harrier and go head to head with another harrier. Rocket packs would be good too.
Oh, you don't need cheats. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard fantastic, mind-bending things about Multi Theft Auto.
Apparently, enthusiast game devs grafting on a real-time multiplayer component to a single-player game to which they don't have the source results in some, shall we say, interesting sync issues. My favorite story is where one guy suddenly gets replaced with a taxi on another guy's client. He still sees himself as a character, but the other guy sees him as a taxi just "walking" around.
"Get in me!" is of course the appropriate response, and upon their union the two have a strange and jittery ride down the street, until they get to the train station. They get on the train, which the taxi guy sees as a bouncy and jittery train ride, but the other guy sees as a taxi intersecting the train, grinding endlessly against the tunnel.
Finally, something breaks, and they're no longer constrained to the map's clipping, rocketing around the city, perhaps bi- or quad-locating, and it's time to reset the server.
...but they do help. (Score:2)
Only a client running a Multi Theft Auto version that is released through this website or through our nightly build service generates a serial number. In other words, developer builds that are built manually by anyone will not be able to join servers that have serial verification turned on. For obvious reasons of course, as we would like to minimize the problem of people cheating through source code modifications.
It will only be a matter of time before they do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
that gave a whole new meaning to the name Spandex Panda
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The player control seems absurdly bad to me. It's as if he's on inline skates and listing from side to side. How is it that they cannot make it more manageable?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think there's a significant portion of gamers who feel San Andreas is the peak of the series so far. GTA4 certainly doesn't have as many fun activities for myself, anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I concur. I was really looking forward to GTA IV but it lacks a lot of the awesome stuff that was in San Andreas. Here's hoping they continue to try out new ideas with the next version. Actually, the ads I've seen for Saints Row make it look more like the proper spiritual successor to GTA III, but I haven't played it yet so I can't comment on how good it is. I think GTA IV is trying too hard to be realistic and dark, and it has lost a lot of the fun cartoony atmosphere that GTA has always had. 90% of the ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh, you don't need cheats. (Score:4, Funny)
What he doesn't tell you is that the taxi-seeing player had picked up an LSD powerup...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is exactly what happened in my experience playing this game, right down to the "Get in me!" exclamation. Except our trains were out of sync, and all I saw was a taxi flying down the rail perpendicular to the track, being smashed to bits, exploding, and arriving at the station in a heap. And when I tried to get in, two taxis appeared on his screen, which bounce and clipped into the air in a whirlwind dance before dumping us both out of the world entirely. Somebody make a whole game outta THAT.
It's missing the serial number generator (Score:2)
The problem is that they don't include the serial number generator.
It's not as if the resulting package that was built could be compared to the official build to find it, and its source code.
Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen a bunch of "open source" game projects where the developers use pseudonyms to contribute. A few of these projects don't even have any contact information to get in touch with the developers. This basically makes their licensing pointless. Anyone can slap the GPL or a BSD-alike license on a bit of code, but it doesn't mean anything unless someone is willing to stand up and claim copyright on the code.. and that means a real human with a legal name. Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity. If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it. They then can write up a DCMA takedown notice and the actual authors have no way to prove that they are the legitimate copyright owners.
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
And pray that you don't get a serious legal smackdown laid on you if it ever did happen to go to court. There are ways to demonstrate authorship and link pseudonyms to real people when you get down to it; they're not perfect, but are you willing to risk the chance they work?
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Interesting)
They opensourced code that is not even theirs, I have my sources, trust me there is actually code in there that they got from rockstar before the hot cofee fiasco when they even supported them, i doubt they ever did permission to release that.
And they also refuse to credit some of ex-developers.
Basically they could get easily sued into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
You should email/contact your sources, the longer they wait to bring this up in court (or make a DMCA take-down request), the harder it will be for them to appear sympathetic in front of a jury.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because they'll probably be sued in the US federal court system for an amount over $20. Read the 7th amendment. IANAL, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If by "fair trial" you meant "certian parts of procedural due process", then yes, you're correct. However, the seventh amendment states:
Paraphrased: "in most civil cases of value >=$20, you get a jury trial." The SCOTUS hasn't consistent
Re: (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you. The right of trial by jury also allows the defendant to go up against a judge if they would prefer.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I am sure that after 550.000 lines of code, they have some way of proving that they own the code they were developing for all these years even if that is a log file
Given that after a little experience its possible to work out which of two students submitting the same code for an assignment was the real author, I'd think telling the authorship of a large project would be easy.
One of the simplest ways is asking for a 'guided tour' of the code. Also, picking a random, obviously complex block of code and saying 'what does this do' will catch most bluffers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a good teacher :)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
which they gave to them
They knew what the project was, they freely gave to them, I don't see the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Insightful)
what's to stop someone from downloading all of the files and revisions, removing the author's names and replacing their own, and putting up their own MTA site claiming that they were the original authors?
i don't see how typing your name in a text file is going to provide any kind of added protection against someone trying to take credit for your work.
whether they use a pseudonym or not, the original MTA authors still have several important things on their side:
book authors publish under pseudonyms, or noms de plume, so why can't programmers?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, that's not how it works.
See, these guys don't want to be identified. That's why they don't have their names on the stuff. So basically the only way they can stop someone from fucking them over is by identifying themselves..
It's a pretty obvious catch-22.
Re: (Score:2)
i don't think you understand what a catch-22 [wikipedia.org] is.
it'd only be a catch-22 if, regardless of whether the author uses a pseudonym or not, he gets fucked over.
but as the myriad of authors who publish books under pen names illustrates, regardless of whether you use a pseudonym or not, you won't get fucked over. that would be the opposite of a catch-22.
Re: (Score:2)
Publishers own the copyright on books written by authors under pseudonyms.
If someone violates the copyright, the publisher sues them.
An anonymous copyright holder is ineffective.
Only Cowards are Anonymous (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the Google Code site for the project [googlecode.com] and see some of the committed files in the repo, you'll notice REAL names with REAL email addresses, and thus your point is moot... and I shall forever be a coward.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
How do you know they're real names?
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Funny)
Well, maybe it's time I was more open about this then. I wrote the code.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait.. is everyone going to now do an "I am Spartacus" thing?
Re:Anonymity (Score:5, Informative)
If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it.
Proof of identity besides, how exactly would this work? All major open-source licenses (including the GPL) are irrevocable for the code they were distributed with. They can claim they wrote it all they want - they can't force anyone to take it off their sites.
If someone wanted to shut down the project, they'd have to:
* Claim it was theirs
* Claim that they never intended for it to be distributed
* Explain how it is that this group, which has been distributing it for a long, long time, managed to be the sole source of distributed binaries for months (years?) without the original authors ever caring
* Explain how this group got ahold of the sourcecode in the first place
There's enough laugh-test issues in there to make any such attempt essentially impossible.
Basically, put it this way. If these people, the actual developers, want to de-GPL it in the future . . . they can't. Cat's out of the bag, ain't going back in. If they can't do it, what makes you think an impostor could?
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Interesting)
Proof of identity besides, how exactly would this work? All major open-source licenses (including the GPL) are irrevocable for the code they were distributed with. They can claim they wrote it all they want - they can't force anyone to take it off their sites.
If a license wasn't applied by the copyright holder then the license and any sublicenses are null and void. Stolen goods don't become legitimate if you sell them on eBay, nor can you "launder" code using a license.
If someone wanted to shut down the project, they'd have to:
* Claim it was theirs
TRUE.
* Claim that they never intended for it to be distributed
FALSE
* Explain how it is that this group, which has been distributing it for a long, long time, managed to be the sole source of distributed binaries for months (years?) without the original authors ever caring
FALSE
* Explain how this group got ahold of the sourcecode in the first place
FALSE
To take your most obvious error first, copyrights do not have to be defended. I could sue ten or fifty years from now without any need to explain myself. The other two might be arguments in a court of law, but here's the basic sequence of events.
1. Your ISP recieves a DMCA takedown, all it requires is a claim to ownership not any proof or reasonable case. They will take it off the site.
2. You must file a DMCA counter notification for their return.
3. The DMCA troll must file a lawsuit to continue (or not, since it's takedown abuse).
4. During the discovery/trial there's no evidence and you win (hopefully).
But wait, what happens here at step 2? It means you must claim:
"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law." plus give your full contact details for a potential lawsuit.
Would you sign that on behalf of some pseudonymous code that some d00d contributed to your project? Do you know who he is, what code access he's had and whether these allegations are true or not? I sure as hell wouldn't do that, it'd be dangerous as hell because I don't know the facts here. You can try getting the pseudonym to file the counter-notice but he might not be reachable or doesn't want to step forward. Then it's game over, your code is down and it's not coming back up.
Basically, put it this way. If these people, the actual developers, want to de-GPL it in the future . . . they can't. Cat's out of the bag, ain't going back in. If they can't do it, what makes you think an impostor could?
You alledge the cat was never legally let out of the bag, and that everyone's handling it or its kittens are dealing in stolen property.
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA is kind of a red herring. Presumably, that group themselves is hosting it. If they get hit by a DMCA for their own project, they're probably not going to roll over and play dead - they're probably going to say "uh, this is ours, go away".
Things might be a little more dubious if their site vanished off the face of the planet and it was down to fans to host it. But as long as the creators of the code actually want it kept up, they're quite, quite able to do so, bogus DMCA claims or not.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GPL is a valid license. If the originator of the source already obtain a GPL license, then automatically all subsidiary works is GPL too. You cannot claim any of the code is yours. To apply for GPL license, the originator usually applied for a copyright using real name of course. After that, all subsidiary works become GPL automatically. The holders of GPL works are not all anonymous. FYI some of them have real copyright for that work.
Do you work for SCO or the Microsoft FUD department by any chance? GPL code can only be legally combined with other GPL(-compatible) code. If I have the copyright on code A (other, non-GPL license), and you have the copyright on code B (GPL) and some third party combines and creates A+B, then that work isn't GPL. You can't steal my copyright by extending your license to my code. Whoever combined those works broke copyright law and the work A+B has no legal license at all. I can issue a takedown because it v
Re: (Score:1)
The definition of all 'subsidiary works' in that context is to modify or fork the original/modified codes. Even if he makes a new program, he is only using the codes from 2 licenses. He has no copyright on any of the two. You only obtain a GPL license for modifying a code that i
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity.
I could not agree more, it is IMHO stupid releasing software that anyone can take and make their own although I am quite sure that many would disagree with you and me. Oh well that is their prerogative.
On a slightly different n
Re: (Score:2)
it is IMHO stupid releasing software that anyone can take and make their own although I am quite sure that many would disagree with you and me.
Did you just call ALL OPEN SOURCE CONTRIBUTORS stupid? On SLASHDOT? What were you thinking? I'm surprised you haven't been modded -2 to yet.
Re: (Score:1)
The fakers write up a DMCA takedown notice, the real authors write a counternotice. If the fakers want to win they have to prove in court that they are the authors.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen a bunch of "open source" game projects where the developers use pseudonyms to contribute. A few of these projects don't even have any contact information to get in touch with the developers. This basically makes their licensing pointless. Anyone can slap the GPL or a BSD-alike license on a bit of code, but it doesn't mean anything unless someone is willing to stand up and claim copyright on the code.. and that means a real human with a legal name. Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity. If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it. They then can write up a DCMA takedown notice and the actual authors have no way to prove that they are the legitimate copyright owners.
Or you could just host the site outside of the US or better yet throw a torrent up. Without real legal names attached to your work your unlikely to get shutdown since they can't find you.
Re: (Score:1)
You also can't enforce your copyright, so putting your work out under the GPL is pointless.
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Interesting)
Why the hell would who care? If your question is, why would people who worked for years and years on a project be a little sad if they had their project taken down and the only way they could put it back up was to put a legal fight.. I think maybe you're capable of figuring that out for yourself. If you mean, why would a court care that they were using pseudonyms and not their real names? Because that's the thing about pseudonyms, anyone can claim to be the owner of them and the court can't tell who is lying.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
I'm Spartacus!
Re:Anonymity (Score:4, Informative)
Now hiring! (Score:5, Funny)
Looking for motivated developers to work on an exciting video game project.
Must be willing to work for free.
Re:Now hiring! (Score:5, Funny)
Looking for motivated developers to work on an exciting video game project.
Must be willing to work for free.
Looking for motivated philanthropists to work on an exciting underprivileged human life improvement project.
Must be willing to work for free.
Oh come on! GTA's attitude is best summed up by the advice "If you kill that hooker, you can get your money back." Comparing it to charity work is a bit silly.
Re:Now hiring! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh come on! GTA's attitude is best summed up by the advice "If you kill that hooker, you can get your money back." Comparing it to charity work is a bit silly.
Killing as many people as you can in GTA is quite acceptable however we cannot pick up a Hooker and bang her in a car, killing is ok but not the other thing, Think of the children! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Killing as many people as you can in GTA is quite acceptable however we cannot pick up a Hooker and bang her in a car, killing is ok but not the other thing, Think of the children! :-)
you can pick up hookers in San Andreas and engage in something that makes the car bounce. then they leave and you have less money. sounds like both things are OK, just not depicted in the same way.
Tell me more, more, more (Score:4, Funny)
you can pick up hookers in San Andreas and engage in something that makes the car bounce.
I can't wait to hear. The suspension's killing me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, exactly. Think of the children you're saving from existence by killing that hooker!
Re: (Score:2)
"If you kill the homeless person under the bridge, you can take their liquor to make molitov cocktails to throw at cop cars!"
Summary Lacking (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, now I get it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When I first saw the headline on my iGoogle page I read it that San Andreas itself went OSS. I was very disappointed when I reread the headline and summary.
svn (Score:2, Informative)
Here's the command to check out the source:
svn checkout http://multitheftauto.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ multitheftauto-read-only
Missing the serial number generation, incomplete (Score:2, Insightful)
It's missing the serial number generator, and is thus incomplete.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
The serial number generation isn't missing and is actually stored in a dll that hasn't been made open source
Re: (Score:1)
Time for some open source (Score:5, Funny)
Good. (Score:2)
Now how far will the code history go, with respect to the closed source editions?
Now it's open source... (Score:2)
Only a client running a Multi Theft Auto version that is released through this website or through our nightly build service generates a serial number. In other words, developer builds that are built manually by anyone will not be able to join servers that have serial verification turned on. For obvious reasons of course, as we would like to minimize the problem of people cheating through source code modifications.
...Let the serial-less servers and serial verification bypasses go forth and multiply in number.
It's still missing some code- net/security modules (Score:2, Insightful)
All our source code available through this project page is licensed under the GPLv3 license. This excludes any dependencies and our net modules for both the client and server: these are still covered under our proprietary license. These modules have been excluded because of reasons involving security and cheating, but contain only a minimal amount of code.
No reason not to include them in source form.
Re: (Score:2)
All our source code available through this project page is licensed under the GPLv3 license. This excludes any dependencies and our net modules for both the client and server: these are still covered under our proprietary license. These modules have been excluded because of reasons involving security and cheating, but contain only a minimal amount of code.
No reason not to include them in source form.
These modules are the ones containing the authentication code designed to verify that it's a genuine build distributed by MTA. If you open source them, you make it easier for people to compile their own build where they have superpowers and play on the public servers with it. That's what they want to avoid.
Uhhh... hello? (Score:2)
Yeah, keeping the code proprietary works great.
Just ask Blizzard, they haven't banned *one* *single* *player* from Battle.net for cheating...
</unimpressed>
Then have it server-side where it belongs. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly are you proposing to put on the server side? If it's the authentication module, you're going to struggle to validate someone's install if your code is on a different computer. If it's the network code, well, if the network code is at the other end of the network I think there might be some slight problems...
Putting the authentication and netcode modules in a "black box" gives them a "secure" conduit from authentication to server. Opening up links in that chain seems like it would be a mistake.
Re: (Score:1)
Will it run on Linux? (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if i can get it working on linux. BB later =)
More than 16 worldwode developers... (Score:5, Insightful)
"More than 16 worldwide developers"
That'd be 17 worldwide developers then?
Re: (Score:2)
The important thing to note isn't the number, it's that they said "16 worldwide developers" not "16 developers worldwide".
There may only be 17 of them, but each of them is as wide as the world.
And I think we all know of the connection between code quality and waist size.
Re: (Score:2)
Our hearts go out to the 17 victims of the recent internet scam.
net: network handling (NOT OPEN) (Score:2, Interesting)
> net: network handling (this module is covered by a different license and is only available as a binary release)
First rule of business, fork, and add a new network layer, then use google's bug database.
Did they fix the hit detection? (Score:2)
I used to play GTA:Race(which was a separate project from MTA) which was basically these wacky races in the SA world, where vehicles change at checkpoints, etc. When I wasn't doing that, I was playing MTA. Sadly, 99% of the MTA servers out there were "free roam" servers, with no game structure whatsoever. The remaining 1% were these "RPG" servers, where you play around in this RPG environment. Sadly, an RPG-izing of San Andreas takes all the fun out of the game. No cars until you get your license, etc. You
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need a license to drive a car you *stole*?
Urban Terror (Score:2)
If you want to cover open-source games cover this one:
Urban Terror [urbanterror.net]
UT is an open-source Counter Strike "clone" that runs on OS X, Linux and Windows. It's awesome. These guys did a great job.
In their own words: "Urban Terror(TM) is a free multiplayer first person shooter, that (thanks to ioquake3) does not require Quake III Arena. It is available for Windows, Linux and Macintosh.
Urban Terror can be described as
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any other games to add, but I just wanted to say thanks for the info on this, I'm always on the look out for good quality Linux games, Tux Racer only goes so far ya? I'll download Urban Terror tonight! :)
Re:too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, but you're wrong.
See how I've provided evidence for all my points?
Re: (Score:2)
As an anonymous coward you don't have karma to lose and thus you get into troll fights all the time.
I discard your evidence-based claims as an argument from authority.
Re: (Score:2)
I discard your evidence-based claims as an argument from authority.
Fine. Look at the sales numbers and admit you were wrong.
Re:This is news??? (Score:5, Insightful)
So I assume you also avoid any open source software that runs on Windows or OS X?
Re: (Score:1)
I think the GP would avoid open source software that ONLY runs on Windows and/or OS X, yes. What's the problem with that?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So I assume you also avoid any open source software that runs on Windows or OS X?
'Requires' is not the same as 'runs on'. GIMP, Pidgin, Blender and many other excellent programs run on Windows, but don't require it.
I would certainly think twice about any open source project that requires Windows or OS X, at least if a linux based or cross platform alternative were around.
Re: (Score:2)
That is just plain silly. This is an enthusiast project, the analogy you are making is bad. Or rather, think of it like this: would you "think twice" about using an OSS Windows GUI enhancement program because it "required Windows"? The question is irrelevant since you wouldn't be using Windows in the first place.
Software projects are created to serve a need, cater to an audience. MultiTheft Auto caters to GTA players, not OSS fans, to criticize them for requiring closed source software is to criticize them
Re: (Score:2)
Port it then. I'd love to see you startup MTA in linux. Will be a very hard thing to do, since Grand Theft Auto is a windows only game, but I'm sure with enough work on Wine and rewriting MTA you'll be able to handle it.
Agreed, mod parent up. (Score:2)
If it runs only on Windows, all I can say is, I'm not going to touch it.
While the client might require it, the server is less bound to such platform issues. Besides, bring out the network code already.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And thanks to the copy protecion, they'd be slapped with a DMCA takedown. Even still (if you want to go full idealist), the resources aren't freely usable, so you'd have to replace them. At that point, you're better off just cloning GTA instead of trying to reverse engineer it, and you probably don't want to use these hacks as part of it
Re: (Score:2)