Ask Slashdot: How To Get Old Commercial Software To Be Open-Sourced? 234
First time accepted submitter Optic7 writes "Many gamers have probably dreamed about the idea of an old favorite game or other no longer supported or developed commercial software being converted to an open-source license so that it could be updated to add new features, support new hardware, other operating systems, etc. However, this type of change of license seems exceedingly rare, unless the copyright holder itself decides on its own that it would be beneficial. The only examples I could think of or was able to find in a brief internet search were Blender (3D animation software that had its source code bought from creditors after a crowd-funding campaign) and Warzone 2100 (Game that had its source code released after a successful petition). With those two examples of different strategies in mind, have any of you ever participated in any efforts of this kind, and what did you learn from it that may be useful to someone else attempting the same thing? Even if you have not participated, do you have any suggestions or ideas that may be useful to such an effort?"
The google's way ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google did open-source some of the commercial-wares - by acquiring the company
Hardly, I'd say the RedHat way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The google's way ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The google's way ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The google's way ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you even read the GPL? The key word is distributing. Running it on your own machine does not constitute distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
and that's why it's bollocks.
how about renting use time for the said sw?
so instead of being distributed a machine that runs linux to you.. you're just rented time to use it, while in possession of the device that happens to run it.
Re:The google's way ? (Score:5, Informative)
There's a license for that ; the Affero GPL, which has the same terms as the GPL but counts use of the software via a network to be the same as distribution. But you can expect all but the most hardened Free Software advocates to avoid that one like the plague.
Re:The google's way ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most hardened Free Software advocates consider Affero to be non-free. It introduces usage restrictions, which go against Freedom 0 ("the right to use the software for any purpose"). It also prevents most code reuse: you can't take a part and put it inside your program if it interacts with users in a way that doesn't provide means of file transfers.
Sadly, RMS has brain farts sometimes. The GFDL, for example, with a literal reading prevents locking the door to a room you have your computer in: keys and door locks might be 14th century technology, but are still a technology. Or, you can attach an "Ode to Hitler" to the work and have it immutable and unremovable.
Of course, erring the other way is wrong too. Some folks says it's good that clang is BSD-licensed. Wrong: that allows Apple to take your contributions and close the whole rest of the toolchain. I can't cross-compile for Mac, can't test build without being a Mac user, etc. With Windows there are no such problems: I run daily test builds for Windows from the comfort of my Debian box, can test any version of Windows in a virtual machine, etc. But on Mac? I have to beg someone to run a Mac build, and if there's a toolchain-related problem, there is nothing that can be done. Can't build stuff for OS X 10.4 because the compiler crashes (bug long fixed upstream...), can't build for PPC-based Mac, and so on. This is why freedoms ensured by the GPL are so important.
Re: (Score:2)
Most hardened Free Software advocates consider Affero to be non-free. It introduces usage restrictions, which go against Freedom 0 ("the right to use the software for any purpose").
That depends on what you call the user: In a way, it's who runs the server that a cloud application runs on. But for me, the actual user is the person who actually uses the software.
It also prevents most code reuse: you can't take a part and put it inside your program if it interacts with users in a way that doesn't provide means of file transfers.
Does the AGPL require a way to download the source code from within the software? I would have assumed that presenting a notice like "This is AGPL software, the source is at http://example.com/foo-source [example.com]" would be perfectly fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Affero
That depends on what you call the user: In a way, it's who runs the server that a cloud application runs on. But for me, the actual user is the person who actually uses the software.
In that particular installation, maybe. Yet the license restricts everyone who runs the software elsewhere, including taking a single function from the code base.
Does the AGPL require a way to download the source code from within the software? I would have assumed that presenting a notice like "This is AGPL software, the source is at http://example.com/foo-source [example.com]" would be perfectly fine.
Which is not doable, or doable with a massive inconvenience, when the interaction is something else than a webpage. What about IRC bots? What about twitter utilities? What about RSS? What about a programmable light switch?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't like to have to publish every single bash script modification that I make on my own machines and I don't think you should have to publish source code unless you're also distributing it.
I agree that Google should "give back" to the community, but I also think they should b
Re: (Score:2)
Google gave Android to the community, or GWT or Guice ...
Re: (Score:2)
We are slowly going back in an era where program running on your machine are just empty shells for processing that happens "on the cloud". For a while, it is likely that the only piece of open source running on your machine will be the OS and the browser. The totality of your data will be processed by closed source software.
To reuse your analogy. Sure as a hitch-hicker you should not ask for the car history. Now if instead of cars, the majority of people start taking public transportations, then it becom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How about Rule 34a: If it exists, there is dodgy car analogy porn about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you dont distribute the program you dont have to release code. They are playing by the rules.
Become Rich (Score:4, Informative)
That said, short of buying the rights to the source, I doubt you'll get very far even with a petition. Look at us Linux users asking nVidia to fix the problems or opensource the blob...
Re:Become Rich (Score:5, Insightful)
And even "buying the rights to the source" may be easier said than done: it only works if the complete source is copyrighted by that company.
It is very well possible that they use bits and pieces of software written by others, for which they do not have the right to redistribute the source, but only the binary linked to their own software. This I have seen before as argument why a source could not be released, or if released, only incomplete and would not compile.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Become Rich (Score:5, Informative)
Releasing a previously closed source project to open source is much harder then people realize.
1. You have to deal with many copyright owners. If you look at some titles you may see mutable companies connected to it. Some of these companies have been closed or acquired however there is someone who still own some copyright. You need to get all those parties to agree.
2. You might open source it. But it probably can't be GPL. Sometimes you will find that they used third party libraries. That are closed source and those companies are active in the developments libraries. Assuming these library owners allow you to release the source with there reference in them.
3. Companies will sometimes hold onto the title to make a remake/reboot/sequel later. Or they will sell a package cd of all the games. So they will not want to open the game up.
In general even if you own rights to the source you may not be as free as you thought.
A second class return to Nottingham, please! (Score:2)
Nasty cold you have there.
Re: (Score:3)
3. Companies will sometimes hold onto the title to make a remake/reboot/sequel later. Or they will sell a package cd of all the games. So they will not want to open the game up.
I think this is one of the things they are the most afraid of, and the most ridiculous thing to be afraid of. Take for example the case of Diablo III. Wouldn't it have been seriously cool if they had released the source code to Diablo I just before the release of Diablo III? It would be all over every geek blog and new site, and it wouldn't hurt a bit.
It's stupid to think that someone wouldn't buy Diablo I in a collectors box just because they have shown how it was made. And they still have whatever rights
ID (Score:4, Informative)
ID Open sources most of their stuff after a few years. Further than that, John Carmack goes through to add comments, clean up code, and in the case of a feature that was settled after a patent dispute with someone else, re-implemented the offending bit of code prior to release. (Seem Doom 3 engine)
Cheers
Kactus
Re:ID (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but they develop everything in-house. Once you start contracting for the engine, art, sound, etc., it becomes more difficult.
And what company wants to release code today in our litigious environment. Patent trolls would have a field day. It is safer for most companies to keep their code locked up than to allow these patent trolls to freely search and find 6 lines of code that they think violates a patent.
Re:ID (Score:4, Informative)
And what company wants to release code today in our litigious environment
The Doom 3 engine source code was released in November last year and John Carmack has already said that when the time is ripe, he'd do the same with id Tech 5 (the engine that powers Rage). So there's still (high profile) people that believe in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you could always contract an engine from a company that agrees to open source it after a time... ID for example.
Open sourcing can even extend the profitability of a game... The original quake for dos would be pretty much abandonware by now, running only in dosbox... But because it got open sourced, there are modern versions which run on modern hardware but you still need the original data files to play it. Obviously you could pirate them, but many people wouldn't because not only is it cheap at least
Re: (Score:2)
Not if the person contracting it has a brain.
Contract out the Graphics, the contract states you own all assets code and copyright 100%. My company does that all the time. any company making a game or application that they are going to sell is ran by fools if they dont do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
...John Carmack goes through to add comments, clean up code, ...
That should be part of the deal. [github.com] Or maybe it's a reason why we don't see more open sourced commercial software?
simple.... (Score:2, Funny)
The Ur-Quan Masters (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Ur-Quan Masters (Score:4, Informative)
I seem to be missing one of the most famous examples in that wikipedia article. Famously, Netscape open sourced their formerly closed-source browser, because it made business sense: It permitted them to stay competitive in the marketplace.
Abuse (Score:2, Informative)
Another example is "Abuse": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_(video_game) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I realise that's another case where the developer decided to open the code themselves; unfortunately /. doesn't allow me to delete or moderate my own post down.
Re: (Score:2)
One game I would love to see hit an Open Source license is Theme Hospital.
The game is great by itself (I just finished playing it again!) although there are many bugs and things that could really be improved upon.
There are attempts at an open source version - but having the original code would be orders of magnitude better...
the Triplane Turmoil case (Score:5, Interesting)
I liked Triplane Turmoil, and old shareware DOS game, a lot. When I met the original developers by accident I offered to help port the game to SDL and managed to convince them to release it as open source: http://triplane.sf.net/ [sf.net]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Looks like a clone of the classic Sopwith game from 1984,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_(video_game) [wikipedia.org]
now Free with GPL-goodness!
http://sdl-sopwith.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
apt-get install sopwith (although the original .exe(.com) version run in DOSBox is still more mature)
Re: (Score:2)
I have played both and I kind of like triplane physics more. Also the game has a story :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the Triplane Turmoil case (Score:4, Interesting)
As one of the original developers, I would like to point out that it was always clear that the game would eventually be released as open source. The only question was to find time to port it, so it would not be dependent on closed or unavailable libraries.
I would also like to thank for the port.
Allegiance (Score:5, Informative)
I can't answer the question either, but yet another game that has been open sourced that's missing from the Wikipedia list is Allegiance. http://www.freeallegiance.org/ [freeallegiance.org]
The game was originally published by none other than Microsoft. Shocking, I know, but way back in prehistory (1999), Microsoft actually released some complete open source software. A game.
I'll pause while our older members grab their portable defibrillators....
Yes, Allegiance is open source and has enjoyed ongoing software development as well as a community-contributed texture "face-lift" to improve the look of the game. It has not made its way onto Linux because it was originally implemented with Microsoft's orphaned DirectPlay, and no one has been interested in replacing the entire network implementation. Its anti-cheat system, which was community-developed, is also dependent on Microsoft libraries unavailable on Linux. (Though possibly Mono has advanced far enough that's no longer true. Regardless, it's anti-cheat geared for Windows, so it's not especially portable.)
For those interested, it's an arcade-style space combat game (think Wing Commander, or the original X-Wing and Tie Fighter games) where two teams fight to control the arena. The added wrinkle is the addition of RTS elements, including a single human commander for each side who plays in RTS mode. Yes, it's that holy grail of games, an RTS/FPS hybrid. As it turns out, RTS/FPS is a hard game to learn and a hard game to play, so it has never enjoyed great popularity (contrary to the popular opinion of a million vocal wannabe game-designers on the forums of the Internet).
As with most small, insular Internet communities, the players tend to be snobbish and stand-offish to newcomers. Goes with the territory.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought donkey.bas was open source too.
Value to the company (Score:5, Interesting)
A software company might (and I emphasize MIGHT) be willing to open-source some old commercial software they own if it can be shown to be of benefit to them. Simply doing it for philanthropic purposes is unlikely to sway most companies, but if, say, a newer and better version of their software is coming out and the old, discontinued version people are asking for is of no threat to their profit margins, then that might be enough of a motivation as it would increase publicity, improve the image of the company (good PR is always helpful), and all the side benefits as well.
John Carmack open-sources all the engines he writes for iD software after a while, once the engine is no longer deemed commercially viable. It's unlike anyone will use the Doom 3 engine (technically id Tech 4) for example in a commercial game as it's been superseded by modern engines, and virtually no-one plays Doom 3 online so the threat from exploits is redundant. This is a great idea since it means projects such as iodoom 3 can be born to improve the engine and allow hobbyist developers to use it in their own games. I wish Valve would open source the original Goldsource engine used for their Half-Life 1 based games, but that will never happen as long as Counter-Strike is still actively played.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod up. If you want a company to, effectively, give away an asset then you need to give them a reason to do so. This typically means either offering them money (which can be counterproductive, as it may make them think that the software is worth more than it is) or persuading them that the goodwill is worth more than sitting on some copyrights for a thing that they're no longer distributing.
The iD case is a bit more interesting, because they make most of their money from selling commercial licenses. The
Re: (Score:2)
A recent example of this is Death Rally. While the game wasn't actually open-sourced, someone did offer to make a native Windows port of the title, and Remedy Entertainment gave the port the green flag. The ported game was then released as freeware. It was very well-received.
A couple years later, an all-new Death Rally became available as an iPhone/Android game, which was also well-received.
I believe the reason the game wasn't open-sourced is because they were using a proprietary video player for the mov
Re: (Score:2)
It's unlike anyone will use the Doom 3 engine (technically id Tech 4) for example in a commercial game as it's been superseded by modern engines
If somebody wants to make a commercial game with id Tech 4 (or the previous ones) they will still have to license it from id Software, unless they're happy releasing the game under the GPL.
OS/2 Lesson: Legal & Copyright hassles (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of folks wanted IBM to open source OS/2 after its sunset. One of the stated reasons why they didn't open source it, was because parts were jointly developed with Microsoft and others, who had joint copyrights. There would have been too many legal and copyright hassles necessary to get open sourcing done. Device Drivers were especially a big problem.
This could be true with a lot of other dormant software. Maybe nobody really knows what potential copyright issues are involved, and nobody wants to take on the liability by open sourcing it themselves, because it might cause litigation grief later.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with OS/2 is that it's still making money for IBM - Serenity Systems bought a source license (with royalties) and continues ecelopment of an OS/2 based operating system called eComStation, which is still actively developed. It's far from dormant software.
Re: (Score:3)
Transfer rights in full to a separate company: a shell company set up just to hold those rights. Say all the rights IBM has in it they transfer to this "OS/2 source holding ltd" company.
Have the OS/2 source holding ltd. release the whole thing - put it on ftp and let the world back it up.
Close that company.
Now who you gonna sue?
Re: (Score:2)
IBM. The judge will gladly pierce the Corporate veil, if you are so blatant about it.
Re: (Score:3)
This is about licensing agreements between IBM and Microsoft (other third parties), unless they made their licensing terms dependent on copyright lifetimes, it has nothing do with copyright terms. This is contract law, not copyright law.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but if the copyright on something has expired, then companies should be free to open up something like that to the world. For instance, in this case, let's say IBM chose to open up OS/2 Warp. They could get an agreement w/ Microsoft and all surviving companies to be okay w/ releasing it under any agreeable license. Same for device drivers. However, if the device drivers concerned are of certain discontinued products, feel free to publish them, given that they are not otherwise actively supported
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure I see the relation with Copyright terms. As far as I understand, the copyright on the released binaries would expire earlier if copyright terms are shortened. Even then you might not be able to use the software due to Terms of Service restrictions.
The source code was never released (it was never published). There is no copyright on unpublished works, and hence there is no expiry of copyright.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed, but if the copyright on something has expired, then companies should be free to open up something like that to the world.
Why? A contract may very well stipulate conditions that go beyond the copyright term. "Should be" != "is"
For instance, in this case, let's say IBM chose to open up OS/2 Warp. They could get an agreement w/ Microsoft and all surviving companies to be okay w/ releasing it under any agreeable license. Same for device drivers.
If you need an agreement they could try it today, it'd still be a helluva lot of work to track everyone down and many would either refuse or make outrageous demands.
However, if the device drivers concerned are of certain discontinued products, feel free to publish them, given that they are not otherwise actively supported.
So you're the law now, since you can tell them to "feel free"? Are you going to indemnify them when some liquidation company somewhere finds they have some IP rights lying around collecting dust that they can sue for? The risk of even one law
Re: (Score:2)
More reason to limit copyright lifetimes to sane values (like say a decade or two) rather than their current ridiculous lengths.
You realize that source code does not magically become available just because the copyright on it expires, right?
I mean just because a hypothetical company looses their hypothetical copyrights on their hypothetical software does not guarantee that they will release their hypothetical source code.
Lightworks, the recently open sourced NLE (Score:2)
Lightworks is an NLE (nonlinear editor, of video) which was recently open sourced due in part to its commercial decline and transfer of ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightworks [wikipedia.org]
Lightworks is an NLE (nonlinear editor, of video) which was recently open sourced due in part to its commercial decline and transfer of ownership.
Oops. I see now that its source code release date has slipped again. Oh well, for the purposes of the conversation, you can see the historical process and you can see the fact that it's probably coming.
Re: (Score:2)
It also sucks horribly. I have been in the Video Editing Biz and have used everything professional out there and Lightworks is a toy at best. I spent 4 days messing around with it and dismissed it as less complete than the OSS Cinerella that is also a giant steaming pile of goo.
No stability, crashes a LOT, incredibly limited tool set, and the deal killer, does not support ANY modern file formats. Noboy edits in AVI.. it's AVCHD for 99% of home video and MPEG2HD for 99% of professional right now wi
Re: (Score:2)
The original poster is asking about abandonware, and I guess Lightworks is a sort of epically twisted abandonware.
Well thanks for your feedback. It was most LOLworthy.
AVI? Worse than Cinelerra? o m g
Reach out the the owners? (Score:3)
For small to medium software, the reason it isn't sold anymore is that it was probably not successful commercially. Find a way to reach out to them and see if they would be interested in releasing the code (and if they own the entire copyright).
I recently helped revive a 5 year old screenwriting software (http://www.trelby.org), which is a niche editing field, ruled by 200+$ alternatives (Final Draft/MMS). I work on this simply because this will more than serve the need of most of the market, and it's fun to program. I could do that because the original developer had opened it when it was not successful commercially.
cross licensing problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
+5 insightful. This is the most likely reason why so many old software projects do not go open source. Hardly anyone completely writes all their own software in-house and a lot of software depends on licensed third-party libraries, drivers, etc.
Not always an easy decision. (Score:3)
It's not always easy for a company to just up and release the source code to their games, as many aspects of it may be entrenched in proprietary licensing. Physics, sound, rendering engine, etc. Entire sections of the code that can't be released, which makes much of the game what it is. It's hard to convince a company to spend resources going through their old source code, plucking out the code that can be released, and then letting it go. It might give them public good will, but it costs them money and the return could end up being very little.
One of the more famous recent cases (Score:5, Interesting)
The original Prince of Persia was recently open sourced [wikipedia.org] after the developer found the once thought lost source code on a floppy hidden away somewhere.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the authors of the original Elite (on the BBC Micro) released the source [clara.net] years ago. Sadly, it's pretty much incomprehensible. I used to program on that platform, but endless pages of uncommented assembly language with multiple instructions per line are actually harder to read than a well formatted disassembly.
Re:One of the more famous recent cases (Score:4, Informative)
Before you visit the source code page, switch your "90's web page design mistakes" filter to maximum.
Re: (Score:2)
terrible beauty: public domain in the modern world (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just a little nitpick: Public Domain is a naturally occurring state of intellectual property (as well as Trade Secret), not something that came into existence via government granting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Though in the case of software, developers should be required to deposit the source code somewhere. A binary blob in the public domain is still quite useless.
All sorts of reasons this is harder than it seems (Score:3)
Reasons why getting companies to open-source stuff is hard include:
1.They may not have the code anymore (or it may be in some archive vault somewhere and difficult to find)
2.3rd parry copyrights on the code (e.g. licensed game engines, licensed middle-ware etc)
3.3rd party patents (e.g. anything that supports any flavor of MPEG or e.g. the Creative Labs patent that ID hard to work around in releasing the Doom 3 source code)
4.Licensing (e.g. movie or sports tie-ins)
5.Cheating or hacking (publishing the code may make it easier to cheat or hack the program)
6.NDAs (e.g. the NDAs for platforms like the XBOX 360, PS3, WII or the hardware NDAs for things like PowerVR GPUs or the NDAs for anti-piracy solutions that may be integrated with the code)
7.They may still be using some or all of the code (or derivative versions of it) in current software.
8.They may not want to open source something old and not-sold-anymore if the result would be competing against things they are still selling.
9.They may not want to give their competitors an edge by opening up code that their competitors might want.
and 10.Cost to review the codebase and make sure that you are free of the above items
It depends on the company, smaller companies are more likely to be willing to either release the code or to do a deal (as happened with Blender) whereas larger companies are less willing to entertain either open sourcing directly or to sell the rights (either to the software as a while or to the codebase but not the data/game/whatever).
For example, it would be almost impossible to convince a large company like Electronic Arts, Activision Blizzard, Atari or Ubisoft to open source any of their stuff. (or in many cases to even support modding of their titles or share information/tools modders would need)
Use the myriad choice of licenses... (Score:2)
Just dreaming (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A precursor to MC ran into big trouble when their source was leaked. Notch wants to avoid this:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/01/20/proto-minecraft-abandoned-due-to-epic-error/ [rockpapershotgun.com]
With money? (Score:2)
I've been toying with the idea lately. Create a Kickstarter-type website where companies could ask certain amount of money for a game/program and if the goal is reached they will release the source.
The Decent Series is open source (Score:3)
That is a space pilot multiplayer first person style shooter. A bit like a flight simulator.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a space pilot multiplayer first person style shooter. A bit like a flight simulator.
Also gave me so much motion sickness back in the day.
Fun game though.
TA:K (Score:2)
I wonder who owns Total Annihilation: Kingdoms since cavedog became gravedog?
I used to love that game.
Re: (Score:3)
Well the graphical assets and the rights are probably owned by Atari.
However, check out Spring [springrts.com] open source engine. It was developed to run Total Annihilation, but expanded to be quite an impressive RTS engine in its own right.
Perhaps if enough interest, someone will champion porting TA: Kingdoms assets to run under Spring.
Re: (Score:2)
All the IP for the game is now in the hands of those greedy Frenchmen (Infogrames) who call themselves Atari but really aren't.
Although Spring is an open-source game engine specifically designed to be compatible with all the game resources from Total Annihilation, the TA source code has never been released nor substantially reverse-engineered (there's actually still work being done). There's a game hosted at SourceForge called Zero-K which was built with the Spring engine and lobby, and is practically a kn
What source? (Score:4, Funny)
Are we expecting that the source code still exists, and that the build system still exists, and that anyone ever wrote down any instructions for how to build it (let alone document the design)? Sure *some* old games will be properly documented and archived, but the way of the world is that this won't include *your* favourite game!
how to do it (Score:4, Funny)
I'd probably set up a website where all these games can be found in a nice, attractive setting that makes them look like the museum pieces they should be- nicely lit, oak frames, black velvet, that sort of thing. Use all procedural textures for the wood grain, velvet, etc, so that they remain resolution independent and always look delish. Get the credits engraved in said wood next to every piece of framed box art, and inlay those credits with gold.
Look for the dudes who did the work, the actual developers. And then approach the authors and explain that the site is going to be organized from top to bottom by which games have well-maintained source and which don't. Instead of rating them numerically, you'll just do it by turning the knobs on the degeneration on the procedural textures, so that the wood looks all rotted out, the inlay half-flaked away and over everything there's a thick patina of dust. So still looking classy but in an increasingly forgotten way.
Then put a classy old collection cup somewhere in the frame there. If clicked on, it'll prompt for donation amount and then animate a corresponding number of coins that make a satisfying clinky sound and animation as they drop into the collection box, and then all the collections are split according to ranking. And you can donate directly to games by dropping coins directly into little miniature collection boxes right next to the lovely framed pictures with the lovely credits. And they'll be sent to the IP owners. If the IP owners are confirmed to be split the proceeds with the actual authors, you'll give that picture extra sexy lighting, finer woodwork for the frame, a richer, lusher, redder velvet.
Give it a nice, pretentious name like The Gallery Eternal.
I collected vintage 1980s DOS software (not games) (Score:4, Interesting)
As a collector and researcher (of regular software, not games)...
Forget it. Most companies are not still around. If they are around, they're not the company they once were, and probably no one there even remembers the old software. If they are still around and remember their old software, they'll ignore you if you ask about it.
This is a great tragedy. It's technically illegal to do research into 1980s software, because the only way you can get it is by violating copyright. Something has gone horribly wrong when doing history is illegal.
Borland started releasing old versions of their software (not open sourcing them, just releasing the old binaries) but the usual happened: Whoever started this effort was quashed by the company changing hands.
WordPerfect blew me off totally when I asked about 4.1, 4.2, and 5.1 - I found these at a "pirate" site.
Will historically important programs like Turbo C, WordPerfect, etc ever be open sourced? Never. A whole chapter in the history of computing is essentially being lost. Only historians who know software very well and can set up emulators can even preserve this software, and only if they can find it.
Even shareware versions are lost to history. Some "shovelware" images of old shareware BBSes have old shareware, but disk space was tight back then and historical versions are gone for good because the new version always replaced the old version. Very difficult to find 1980s shareware for any package with versions released in the 90s.
Re: (Score:3)
One companies said that there old ver of some software was not up to there standers but they no longer offer there old mac 68k of it and they say that downing it from a "pirate" site is illegal.
The answer is really easy: (Score:2)
Just pay the original developer(s) enough money to let them retire early with the lifestyle of an A-list actor or pro sports boffin. Then they'll be happy to hand you the keys to the coded castle and bid you good luck.
Hey, I said the answer was easy... the implementation is a bit thorny.
Re: (Score:2)
It is (or was) being done for Apple ][ software (Score:2)
You could ask these guys how they go about it:
http://lostclassics.apple2.info/ [apple2.info]
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
URU Myst (Score:3)
URU in the Myst sequel of games has been open sourced by Cyan Worlds. See openuru.org [openuru.org].
Star Control 2 (Score:2)
FYI, SC2 was also open sourced by the creators, can be found at sc2.sourceforge.net. In cases like this, it's a case where the creators that hold copyright over the work love the work itself. They see nearly zero opportunity to continue monetizing it, so they release the work to let it continue living. In many other cases, however, the copyright holder will refuse to do *anything* like this if there is no money to be made. Especially since a significant amount of money has been made in the console world
With small developers, just politely ask (Score:4, Informative)
I very politely asked the developer of the PalmOS 2sky astronomy app for this. In asking, I emphasized that (a) all I needed was his agreement to license under GPL2+ and a copy of the source code, that (b) I would do all the maintenance and support and that (c) I am an experienced PalmOS developer, and I think I listed my shareware and open source credits. He agreed, telling me that he turned down an earlier request. I thanked him very much for his generosity. I think my emphasis on how little work he would have to do with the release was important. Before release, I had to rewrite and/or use an open source library as an alternative for some SDK example code that was being used and that was under an incompatible license, and then update some of the data. He even sent me a dump of his old website, which I updated and put at open2sky.sf.net .
In this, the hardest thing was actually tracking down the author and his email address. Then there was a lot of gruntwork rewriting code with an incompatible license, but that was fairly standard UI code.
liberatedgames.com (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'll say this: I've bought games on GOG.com that I could turn around and pull off of my shelf. Why? Well, generally a) for the convenience of having a nice, all in one installer rather than, say, floppies or old scratched up CDs or whatever, and b) the work of setting up DosBox, getting rid of nonfunctional copy protection, and all that jazz is done.
The only thing I'd change is to make games more amenable to custom DosBoxing. Wing Commander, for example, had a great General MIDI score. But you can't act