Slashdot Mirror
Black And White: Open Source?
RP writes "It will be if Peter Molyneux (the designer) has his way. I noted this link over on thecitadel.net where he is quoted as saying: "The first thing is my ambition to make the whole of Black & White, the AI engine, the 3D engine, the physics engine, open-source. Then anybody can download and use that stuff. To use it in a commercial product, you have to pay us a royalty, but, you know, absolutely free for enthusiasts to use." If you've seen any screenshots of Black and White, you know this could be exciting. " Very impressive looking stuff.
That means it won't be free. It probably can not be distributed on CDs because these can be considered commercial products (you usually pay for them). The code can not be reused in GPL programs since it adds restrictions which is not allowed by the GPL (for good reasons). Using code in any program under another license can be problematic since probably redistribution will be either explicitly or implicitly (through the non-commercial clause) restricted.
Still, it is "open source", since the source is open. That should give some insight why some people rather dislike using this term when referring to free software (especially RMS does, of course). "Open source" has a rather positive association with free software to the wider masses now. So now companies can publish non-free software and get an automatic market boost by claiming they are open source. They even made it to a Slashdot story, though they don't have anything the free software community might profit from (which the story poster consequently didn't realize, in order to support my point).
Why are you so damned anal?
He's releasing the source, there for it's open source. It doesn't matter if some standards group defines open source by a different meaning. And those that pay royaltees are commercial companies, the people who SHOULD have to pay to make money off of someone elses work. I want to play with this I can free of charge, I can change what I want, so what's the problem? Why are you bitching?
If you'll check the Open Source Definition, you'll see that restrictions on type endeavor are not present in Open Source licenses. Therefore, restrictions on non-commercial use disqualify the software from being Open Source.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Because Open Source means more than just being able to see the source. Heck, I have a source code file of MS-DOS 1.0 and its COMMAND.COM (no, you can't have a copy). Anybody who's moderately clever can reverse-engineer code to produce a source file.
What makes Open Source interesting is that you can change and/or redistribute the code.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
...would be something like X11. (Yes, I know the protocol is bloated, but this is an example.) Only if the entire game (rendering and all) is done on the server can the client be trusted not to give away the position of the player right behind the wall in front of you.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Well, sure they could! But from a business perspective, this would only work if they find licencees who are willing to pay just for being able to close up their modifications (and not for using the code in the first place). And why should anyone do that?
This is not some basic library for implementing huge projects (like e.g. Qt) with 100000+ LOCs but a game engine where the sum of all "derived code" (in the GPL sense) will very often be several orders of magnitude smaller than the original code (esp. if it supports some kind of scripting) and most of the work is spent for art and level-design. And since the copyright on the artwork is more than enough to prevent some enthusiasts from developing a standalone free clone while the game is still on the shelves, it would simply make no economical sense to pay much for a special licence.
'The definitions keep getting muddier and muddier. '
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
No they don't. The definition of open-source is still as clear as ever it was. Something cannot be open-source if it discriminates against one class of users - ie this can't be, if commercial folks have to pay for it, yeah?
I've seen too many gratuitous abuses of this "open" word as a buzzword not to get extremely pissed off with it. Everyone, get it right!
Interesting idea... if something claims to be open source and yet isn't... if someone violates the [L]GPL... who do we get to fight for us?
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Yes, I know RMS says that, but he's wrong. There is no OSI Certified Open Source Software which is not free software by his definition. And there will never be as long as I'm on the board.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Most people who have never heard from RMS understand the term "free software" to mean gratis software -- software without cost. Microsoft uses it that way. That's why it's bad to use the term "free software" unless you're going to include a spare RMS with every instance to explain what it really means.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Game programming is one of the last black arts of computing. Any code handed down from the priesthood to the serfs is greatly appreciated solely for its educational value.
:-]
One side effect: all this free code & wisdom raises the standard for us poor game programmers
The problems with multiplayer, especially with Quake isn't synching issues, people changing there stats, but rather with people 'augmenting' There reflexes, IE auto-aim, and auto-dodge (I think). There isn't really much you can do about that, and in fact it was a problem with even the closed source versions, from what I've heard.
Since this program is more of an RTS type thing it isn't really an issue as much. Computer Augmentation can pretty much make you invulnerable and a perfect shot in quake, but It wouldn't really be able to do that much in starcraft (Humans can already beat the computer in general).
I'm not sure how much of an issue it would be in Black and White.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Oh, so words mean what you say they mean? Okay, *I* say that "shit for brains" is a compliment. Now I'm going to compliment you. You have shit for brains.
Oh, maybe words *don't* mean what YOU or I say they mean? They might have an actual definition?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
That's why you use the GPL, so that you limit the profits of anyone who uses your source code. Professionals and businesses tend to use the GPL, whereas amateurs and non-profits use the BSD license. With the GPL, you get the benefits of Open Source, and (as long as you are careful to get copyright assignments) you can license the code for proprietary uses in addition.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
They are free to claim it, but as you can see from surveying the comments, most users can see through their nonsense. Any software that isn't free software cannot be Open Source. A simple look at the Open Source Definition will show you that.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
So while everyone argues about the exact usage of the term "open source," here are some pages with screen shots of Black and White.
Preview at Daily Radar (English)
Total Video Games - Screen shots and Interview (English)
Games On Line (Italian)
BW Zone at GamesWeb (German)
Enjoy!
If a product's source code is available but you have to pay a royalty for particular uses, it's not Open Source
Right, it's not "Open Source". It's "open source" - a figure of speech, which no one has a monopoly over. Give Peter Molyneux a break. As far as I'm concerned, he can say whatever he pleases, ESR be damned.
I dunno how usable it will be..Talk about legacy code..If anyone has been following Bullfrog in recent years, you'll know how long they've been wrestling with Black and White. Its most likely a mess, i'd imagine.. Then again, it might benefit from a few thousand pairs of eyes tearing it apart and cleaning it up. A good move.
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
Companies should be applauded for making their source code available, but making source code for a product available and making a product Open Source still need to be treated as different things.
I do wonder about players in multi-player games tampering with the code to give them godly powers -- or at lest demi-godly powers. How will such tampering be prevented, if at all?
One philosophical question: At what point does a bad license make releasing source code for software A Bad Thing? (A Bad Thing for the original developers, users of the software, and the programmers making use of the source, that is.) Is the situation made worse by calling the software "open source"?
-- Diana Hsieh
-- Diana Hsieh
GeekPress: The Weirder Side of Tech News
free for enthusiasists, must pay to use in commercial product. that isn't open source. it's nice that you want to be more open, but it's not open source. (get it yet?)
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
> welp there goes the multiplayer =(
Finally, something I can lecture about.
I've spent a good while over the past five months working on an open source MMORPG, and one of the issues that constantly shows up is client-server security. Anybody who has the source code can modify it, and can run their own hacked client. And there's nothing that you can do about it, apart from closing certain portions of the source code, which is a Bad Thing. (One possibility would be a closed source validator which checks to make sure that the binary is "Acceptable")
That said, what you need to do in any sort of open-source project with a multiplayer function is to develop a system where you trust nobody. In other words, should player X suddenly get a +5 sword of flame and there's no way that he could have gotten it on this level other than cheating, the other clients ignore it/notify the other users/kick him out. I don't know enough about Black and White to go into more detail in terms of how you'd compensate for its actual style of gameplay, but that's one approach.
Another approach would be to maintain a list of "untrustworthy" players based, possibly, off of their IP addresses. Then, if a player is determined to be cheating, he can be blacklisted.
You CAN have secure open-source projects; this is clearly proved by Linux itself. You just need to keep this in mind when you design the game -- and you want a fairly secure multiplayer model anyways, as people will find ways to cheat no matter what. (Played Diablo lately?)
Myself, I'd love an open-source Black & White, just so I could port it to Linux and further disrupt my productivity.
Nicholas
disclaimer: opinions contained therein are not neccessarily those of my employer.
I am eagerly awaiting Black & White. Peter Molyneux has consistently put out amazing, fun, and innovative (and not in the MSFT sense) games. Games like Populous, Magic Carpet, and Dungeon Keeper. From what I've seen Black & White is another type of God game where you try to get tribesmen to worship you. However you also have a giant creature which you indirectly control. I guess it is kind of like a gigantic Tamagotchi because you have to train it and keep it happy. (It'll start eating your tribesmen if it gets hungry, for instance.) Also, it can be played in a massively multiplayer online manner.
One thing I'm looking forward to is that you cast spells (generating a thunderstorm for instance... which looks really awesome in the video clips I've seen) using "Gesture Recognition technology." For example the storm takes effect when you draw a circle in a certain manner. I'm not really sure what all that involves.
The fact that it is going to be "Open Source" (Open Source depending on what the license really says of course) is the icing on the cake.
Reiserfs uses pretty much the same license.. basically the GPL with the commercial clause, and as far as I know (that is, I'm pretty damn sure, they're trying to get it incorporated in the kernel ;), it's open source.
Semi-open open source projects just don't work, corporations control parts and allow enthuisasts to midify part, without actually changing the game itself. This is not a "Good Thing" and someone needs to realize it.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
Some people have said this could not be open source if you need to pay a license for commercial redistribution. They are just plain wrong.
The easiest and IMO best way to do this is to licence under the GPL, then sell licence exceptions. Include a note with the open source release that says only submissions assigning copyright will be accepted into the code base (still fully acknowledging authorship in the code and credits). A nice addition would be giving Lionhead share options to major contributors.
This could definitley work, and if people really want to licence the engine in for redistribution binary form, they just pay for a special licence from Lionhead.
Can't they just use mutilple linceses? To everyone it is open source. If you want it to be a closed then you would have to buy a different license from them to do so. This is similar to what the Quake 1 engine is now. Couldn't they do something like that?
... has a great article on cheating in games.
;-)
It lists the most common ways someone will hack the game to cheat, and also gives (obvious) rules of thumb. e.g. Security through obsecurity doesn't work, etc.
Why do most of us game developers treat problems and solutions on game cheating as taboo ? The cheaters are ALLREADY smart enough to hack the game - openly discussing on how to make a game more secure isn't going to give them any more insights !
> That said, what you need to do in any sort of open-source project with a multiplayer function is to develop a system where you trust nobody.
When it gets right down to it, you still need to trust someone. e.g. If there isn't an authoritative server, then you game is going to get out sync faster then we can say "inserted packet"
> You CAN have secure open-source projects; this is clearly proved by Linux itself.
Very nice point.
Congrats to Lionhead for talking about open-sourcing their game. I _really_ wish games older then 5 years would be open-sourced: It would keep the fanbase around longer !
Someone should have told that to Red Hat before they started making a lot of money selling Open-Source software.
People just don'e Get It. Free Software != $0 pricing. It does mean you have to change your business model. Substantially, in fact. And because of this, businesses are afraid to try it. But it is quite possible to make money, even a ton of money, with Open-Source software.
Suppose Lionhead licenses the Black&White engine under the GPL. Now anyone can modify the engine, and distribute their modifications to others. But only if they include the source to their modifications, and license them to the recipients under the GPL.
If the licensee wants to close up their modified engine, they would need to get a separate license from Lionhead, and Lionhead could ask for royalties. Whether this would work depends entirely on how intent on closing their engine modifications potential licensees are, and how much they trust the GPL.
Note: I'm not saying the GPL is the only option, I'm just using it as an example.
Another note: I'm not saying you shouldn't trust the GPL, but it is still untested in court, and when your product is on the line, being certain you have the right to use third-party code can be worth a lot of money.
I don't know anything about the code of the game, but I suspect Bullfrog won't have a lot to do with this game: Molineux said after Electronic Art bought it, things changed from "A meeting every three month to a meeting a day", and he left... :)
He now works in/for his Lionhead studios, that he founded after the bad experiences had with BF & EA.
Ciao,
Rob!
AniToolBox! An Open Source animation program!
Let's not critize them for not being 'opensourse' per se (or 'free software'). Yeah, they're not there, but it's a start. And you can learn from the code to see how some of today's more innovative games are being made. Furthermore, if you DO want to use the code, isn't poking around and seeing if you CAN do something with the code a little more cost effective than blindly licensing an engine (Unreal, Q2, Lithtech, whatever)? I think this is a good step, and I like paying for games. If someone decides they can use it to make something worthwhile, then I'll pay for that too.
That said, let's see what happens before jumping to conclusions, k?
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
(not doing this logged, so I can't turn of +2)
Would this technically be "Open Source", doesn't that imply that you can use it for commercial purposes? I mean, this would be very similar to Sun's community source license, witch a lot of people have a problem with (though, I personally don't).
Personally, I'd like to distribute software like this myself, I mean, I don't see a problem with other people using stuff I write, but I don't see why they should get to profit from it when I don't. (Also, it goes against the teachings of Eric S Raymond, so it must be good, right?)
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n