Source Code to Homeworld Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Source Code to Homeworld Released

Posted by CowboyNeal on Saturday September 27, 2003 @05:20AM from the all-yours-now dept.

ceejayoz writes "The source code for Relic Entertainment's 1999 Game of the Year, Homeworld, has just been released. Details are available at Homeworld Universe. Not GPL'ed, but pretty nifty all the same." Note that any sort of property aside from the source such as graphics or codecs have been stripped out, but it's still cool to look through the game engine.

38 of 55 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:If copyright were abolished, we'd see more sour by ceejayoz · 2003-09-27 05:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

Imagine a world without copyright.

Imagine a world without any good games.
Re:If copyright were abolished, we'd see more sour by Snowspinner · 2003-09-27 05:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Imagine a world without any good games.

I don't have to imagine.

--
Philip Sandifer's academic website
I wonder... by sirmikester · 2003-09-27 05:55 · Score: 1

It will be interesting to see what the community does with the source. I think the first thing that will be done is a Homeworld Plus version of the original game, with extra features etc... but with all the great homeworld mods out there, some of them could be made into standalone games that have their own look and feel. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

--
In linux libertas
1. Re:I wonder... by ceejayoz · 2003-09-27 05:58 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I'm personally hoping for a properly done Star Wars RTS. The Star Wars: New Rebellion mod for Homeworld was a nice start, but it suffered from not having access to a lot of stuff in the HW engine... it'll be interesting to see what they can do with it now!
steal? by Thinkit3 · 2003-09-27 06:00 · Score: 1

It'd only be stealing if your code was deleted when it was copied.

--
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
1. Re:steal? by ceejayoz · 2003-09-27 06:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So, I suppose you wouldn't care if someone took your GPL'ed work, violated the license, and released it - with their name on it, deleting all credit and the GPL license?
  
  The copyright owner of the code may not be losing the code itself, but that doesn't change the fact that they have the right to say how their code is used and who gets it.
2. Re:steal? by Drantin · 2003-09-27 06:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Have you not heard of the perfectly valid term "Copyright infringement" ? This describes exactly that situation of people using your code in ways that violate the licensing terms of the GPL... Why you would want to call a spade a chicken rather than a spade is beyond me...
  
  --
  Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
3. Re:steal? by Quill_28 · 2003-09-27 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Bull crap.
  
  So I can take your song, book, or designs, publish them and not be stealing from you.
  
  Where do you come up with such nonsense? I'm curious really I am.
4. Re:steal? by Pofy · 2003-09-27 09:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ehh as long as you are just copying those song books and such, no, you would not be stealing, you would be infringing on copyright. Copyright laws would deal with it. On the other hand, stealing is handled by a completely different set of laws that would not be applicable at all here. So no, it would not be stealing.
5. Re:steal? by ceejayoz · 2003-09-27 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm gonna link you to this wonderfully insightful AC to answer that.
  
  You're using something that you don't have the right to use - I'll call it stealing, whether you like it or not.
6. Re:steal? by vadim_t · 2003-09-27 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. You steal something when you remove something that isn't yours from its original position.
  
  The whole concept of stealing was made long before computers appeared and only makes sense when applied for physical things. You can steal a computer, but not the software on it, unless you take the whole disk.
7. Re:steal? by ceejayoz · 2003-09-28 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  The whole concept of stealing was made long before computers appeared and only makes sense when applied for physical things.
  
  Then, as often happens with language, the definition of "to steal" has changed to reflect changes in technology. After all, when one "steals" something, you've got something that you don't have the right to have.
  
  But since using the word "steal" seems to bug you so much, I'm gonna use a different word - "wrong". Breaking the GPL is "wrong". Violating copyright is "wrong". Warezing some game company's hard work is "wrong".
  
  Happier now?
8. Re:steal? by vadim_t · 2003-09-28 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, much happier. "Copyright infringement" would be a more correct term, but that's fine.
  
  Corruption of the meaning of language is a powerful and quite evil tactic some people use. Copying software is not the same as stealing somebody's hard disk. It's also ridiculous to say that software piracy, which is essentially illegal sharing of data has something to do with taking over a ship, killing people and raping women.
  
  The same way, the term "terrorist" has been redefined to almost mean "somebody who does anything the government doesn't like", making it easy to apply it to protesters in a manifestation.
  
  Of course, if you use the exact terms it doesn't sound so impressive, does it?
9. Re:steal? by ceejayoz · 2003-09-28 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Like it not, the definitions of words change. Take piracy, for example.
  
  " The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy."
  
  Arguing semantics because you can't come up with a real argument against the other person's point is a pretty good sign you've lost the argument.
  
  Avast, burglar! Stop stealing and pirating that software. Arrr. :-p
10. Re:steal? by vadim_t · 2003-09-28 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  As a geek I like arguing about semantics ;-)
  
  Besides, my arguing about semantics can't be a sign of me losing the argument, because the whole argument was about semantics in the first place :-P
11. Re:steal? by rking · 2003-09-29 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  Arguing semantics because you can't come up with a real argument against the other person's point is a pretty good sign you've lost the argument.
  
  Doing pretty much anything "because you can't come up with a real argument against the other person's point" would be a pretty good sign that you'd lost the argument. That doesn't mean it's wrong to object to someone's choice of words.
  
  If I say "My dog can talk" and you say "That's not a dog, it's a parrot", that doesn't mean you're losing the argument. In fact the only argument there is whether it's a dog or a parrot, and it's only just started.
Whine whine whine by nutsy · 2003-09-27 06:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Phooey. You have to click through an obnoxious EULA then fill out a nosey registration form-- which doesn't seem to work for me; no matter how many times I filled it out and hit "submit" it kept bouncing me back to the same registration page-- before the mighty lords of the Relic Development Network deign to confer upon you the rank and honour of "RDN access level 1", which may or may not include a single whiff of source code. "Not GPL'd"?! Not only is it not GPL'd, it's total jive. A curious would-be game developer would be better off poking through some of the many existent game engines rather than playing Relic's silly registration game.
1. Re:Whine whine whine by ceejayoz · 2003-09-27 06:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  RDN Access Level 1 is automatically given to everyone who registers - it's the default level. People with Level 1 access have full access to the source code.
  
  I've had a few problems browsing the site with Moz Firebird, worked better in IE... perhaps try that?
2. Re:Whine whine whine by merdark · 2003-09-27 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't HAVE to release anything at all you know. You seem to be angry at them for being kind. Having someone elses source code is not a right, it's a privilege. They are letting you into their house to look around, naturally they ask who you are.
  
  Phooey to your obnoxious and selfish attitude, wanting everything for free.
3. Re:Whine whine whine by renuncln · 2003-09-27 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, maybe you're right, I'll just run right over to the Microsoft web site and download IE for Linux so I can do that.
4. Re:Whine whine whine by ceejayoz · 2003-09-27 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if you're using Linux you'd have your work cut out for ya to port it anyways...
  
  I'm sure there's a computer somewhere in the surrounding 20 miles that you have access to that runs Windows, especially if you're a gaming enthusiast (and not just trolling the games section here).
5. Re:Whine whine whine by renuncln · 2003-09-27 14:34 · Score: 1
  
  I am a compulsive gamer. My point is that if you release source code shouldn't people from other platforms be able to download and possibly port your game for you? This could lead to increased sales of older versions of the game due to the need for people to use the data files that came with the game. My point is that last time I checked IE is made for one OS and at least a certain percentage of dedicated gamers prefers not to run said OS. I buy a fair amount of commercial games for Linux and I own a fairly high end machine to play them on. On a side note, yes I do have access to several computers running Microshaft OS but I personally prefer not to use them.
6. Re:Whine whine whine by ceejayoz · 2003-09-27 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't make the code IE only to piss you off. I know the webmaster of the Relic site and /msg'ed him on IRC - he wasn't sure why Mozilla couldn't download it properly.
  
  You seem to have a bit of an entitlement complex. Relic doesn't have to release the source code, ya know.
7. Re:Whine whine whine by nutsy · 2003-09-28 12:00 · Score: 1
  
  a. I am perfectly aware that my previous post is whiny. See subject line. :)
  b. Just as they didn't have to release anything, I don't have to be impressed by a so-so quasirelease.
  c. What I also said, about there being plenty of non-registration/EULA-encumbered game engines available for the hacking, still stands. So nyaah!
I still have my song, book, design. by Thinkit3 · 2003-09-27 08:13 · Score: 1

So it's not stealing. There's a term for those who can't differentiate between a physical object and information. It's called insanity. Come back to the real universe.

--
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
1. Re:I still have my song, book, design. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-27 09:47 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  There's also a term for dwelling on meaningless differences in definition to hide the lack of a real argument. Its called semantics.
Peh? Nothing new by Neophytus · 2003-09-27 08:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

any sort of property aside from the source such as graphics or codecs have been stripped

Also released in 1999 was Unreal Tournament, which shipped with it's game engine avaliable to modders out of the box. Its done them no harm at all, they created the levels for the game within the sandbox they created for modders and used the same tools as they shipped modders and more developers should do the same.
1. Re:Peh? Nothing new by dj_paulgibbs · 2003-09-27 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  The headers for UT v436 are available - if you want the engine source, I suppose asking Epic nicely (considering the age of the engine) might prove dooable.
  
  As far as UT2003 goes, they are reluctant to give out the headers for various reasons - but if you email them and they think you have a good enough reason, they give you then.
2. Re:Peh? Nothing new by Kyouryuu · 2003-09-28 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I think you'll find that almost all PC games that have lived well beyond their shelf lives have that one crucial element in common - tools for gamers to make their own levels, mods, and so forth. Aside from quality in general, this appears to be essential in distinguishing a game that lives to a ripe old age from one that gets shipped off to the bargain bin in a couple months.
  One example I like to point to is Red Faction. Red Faction is not the greatest FPS of all time and its Geo-Mod is gimmicky at best. But, the original Red Faction shipped with a rather comprehensive game editor and, as a result, still has a small but dedicated following. When Red Faction II released, it came with no editor and no multiplayer to speak of. That small community construed this as the metaphorical "slap in the face" and are somewhat venomous towards this new title as a result.
  Not surprisingly, Red Faction II is almost at a bargain bin price these days and received little praise from reviewers.
3. Re:Peh? Nothing new by Slack3r78 · 2003-09-28 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'd actually be rather surprised to see the UT engine released openly inside of the next year or so. There are still a number of commercial products (IE: the infamous DNF) based on it that have yet to be released. It'd just kind of suck from a PR standpoint for Epic if they started giving away something a dev house spent a lot of money on before they could even get it out the door - all other things aside.
heh by rwven · 2003-09-27 09:21 · Score: 1

I cant wait to see what come out of this. the whole homeworld "series" of things has just been extremely impressive. I never liked RTS games until Homeworld and i actually turned up the volume on the music. normally i just turn down the volume. i hope someone does SOMETHING in any case... time will tell
Re:Hmmm by ceejayoz · 2003-09-27 11:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Open Source 3d engines already exist, what's the big deal with this one?

I'd like to see one of these OSS engines that rivals Homeworld... got a link?

Most of the reviewers are of the opinion that Homeworld did set the standard for others to follow, too.
"No good deed goes unpunished" by leonbrooks · 2003-09-27 15:29 · Score: 1

Says it all, really. (-:

Don't panic, nutsy, just be patient. HomeWorld was/is sufficiently shiny that someone will port this source to Linux, assisted by the graphics, sounds etc suplied on the MS-Windows games CDs as necessary. Then for the first time, we'll see HomeWorld2 on the XboX.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Private Eye... by leonbrooks · 2003-09-27 15:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

...(a UK rag) had an insightful cartoon. A tall-ship captain is being confronted by cutless-waving pirate, who says:

We're going to copy all of your sea-shanties [songs] and not pay you anything

The argument is made: but without a barrier to entry, there wouldn't be so much incentive to produce good music; to which I respond: "Oh, you mean boy bands?" I think supporting artists is a good idea, I think forcing and industrialising that support sucks.

Do we really need a large music "industry"? I think not. I suspect that what happened to The Santa Cruz Operation (opening them to subsequent abuse from The Canopy Group) and is happening to Sun and Microsoft is about to happen to the RIAA and their cronies. It's become feasible once more for a garage-band sized operation to publish their stuff widely.

If you are a musician, please consider sticking your stuff up on a page somewhere and aiming a few of the music sites at it. If you want to sell stuff rather than just have people appreciate it or make a name for yourself, put up low-quality compressed or truncated versions and tell people that they're crippled. Some people will be happy to listen to highly compressed versions of your music - fine, count that as free advertising. If enough people hear it, some of them will want better.

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Re:Hmmm by ikkonoishi · 2003-09-28 03:09 · Score: 1

Damn Straight...

Man that game runs with good detail even on low end graphics cards.
Under what license has the code been released? by motown · 2003-09-28 04:11 · Score: 1

Not GPL'ed, but pretty nifty all the same.

Agreed. The availability of the source code to Homeworld is really cool, since it's one of the most awesome games ever released. :)

But can anybody here tell us under what kind of license the source code has been released? What are the major differences with the GPL and is it close to any of the generally accepted "Open Source" licenses?

It seems likely to me that it would be a highly restrictive "non-commercial use only" license, similar to the one under which Volition released the source to Freespace a while back.

At any rate, beggers can't be choosers. With this code, we'll be able to port it to various non-Win32 platforms, regardless. Especially since the game's engine supports not only Direct3D, but OpenGL as well. Good job, Valve! :)

--
"Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
1. Re:Under what license has the code been released? by hardburn · 2003-09-29 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Homeworld is made by Relic, not Valve (they both happen to publish under Siera, but are not the same dev house).
  
  I was hoping for porting, too, but this might take a lot of work. Parts of the code that Relic doesn't actualy own aren't included, so you'd need to do some hacking just to get a faithful version of the executable and DLLs. Then you get to wade through all that DirectX crap and convert it to something that actually runs elsewhere.
  
  So this looks like it'll be mostly a thing to help modders, not those hoping for a port. I will be delighted to be wrong, though :)
  
  --
  Not a typewriter
Re:Hmmm by Kyouryuu · 2003-09-28 07:00 · Score: 1

I couldn't have said it better. Just because an engine is open source does not instantly make it more viable or "better" than a commercial engine you can look at.
What open source needs is not new engines - it needs entire games using those engines with built-in editing and mod features. Show us what can be done. Crystal Space is a few pretty pictures and relies on non-open source software for the most part to build things with it. Cube has no overarching theme that structures it. Show me a comprehensive game with all of the trimmings as a commercial one, and then I will share the parent's sentiment.