Microsoft Releases Allegiance Game Source

Zenin writes "Microsoft has graciously released the source code to Allegiance for free on their site. Allegiance was released back in 2000, and rated the 'Best Game No One Played' by GameSpot - this little- known multiplayer space-combat/team-RTS was pretty innovative, yet never took off in the mainstream. Nevertheless it quickly developed a fanatical following - a dedicated community who reverse engineered the game to enable complete mods, expand server power, and much more. A million thanks to Joel 'solap' Dehlin and the rest of the Allegiance development team for making this happen!"

Comments

For your perusal

[ObviousGuy]

The license agreement:

This Microsoft Research Shared Source license agreement ("MSR-SSLA") is a legal
agreement between you and Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft" or "we") for the software
or data identified above, which may include source code, and any associated materials,
text or speech files, associated media and "online" or electronic documentation (together,
the "Software").

By installing, copying, or otherwise using this Software, found at
http://research.microsoft.com/downloads, you agree to be bound by the terms of this
MSR-SSLA. If you do not agree, do not install copy or use the Software. The Software is
protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and is licensed, not sold.

SCOPE OF RIGHTS:
You may use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, subject to the restrictions in
this License. Some purposes which can be non-commercial are teaching, academic
research, public demonstrations and personal experimentation. You may also distribute
this Software with books or other teaching materials, or publish the Software on
websites, that are intended to teach the use of the Software for academic or other non-
commercial purposes.
You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in any form for
commercial purposes. Examples of commercial purposes would be running business
operations, licensing, leasing, or selling the Software, distributing the Software for use
with commercial products or any other activity which purpose is to procure a commercial
gain to you or others.
If the Software includes source code or data, you may modify such portions of the
Software and distribute the modified Software for non-commercial purposes, as provided
herein.

You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the
Software. However, this right does not grant you a license to any of Microsoft's
copyrights or patents for anything you might create using such information.

In return, we simply require that you agree:
1. That you will not remove any copyright or other notices from the Software.
2. That if any of the Software is in binary format, you will not attempt to modify such
portions of the Software, or to reverse engineer or decompile them, except and
only to the extent authorized by law.
3. That if you distribute the Software or any derivative works of the Software, you
will distribute them under a verbatim copy of this License, and you will not grant
rights to the Software or derivative works that are broader than those provided by
this License. For example, you may not distribute modifications of the Software
under terms that would permit commercial use, or under terms that purport to
require the Software or such derivative works to be sublicensed to others.
4. That if you have modified the Software or created derivative works, and distribute
such modifications or derivative works, you will cause the modified files to carry
prominent notices so that recipients know that they are not receiving the original
Software. Such notices must state: (i) that you have changed the Software; and
(ii) the date of any changes.
5. That Microsoft is granted back, without any limitations and on a royalty free basis,
the rights to reproduce, install, use, modify, distribute and transfer your
modifications to the Software source code or data.
6. That any feedback about the Software provided by you to us is voluntarily given,
and Microsoft shall be free to use the feedback as it sees fit without obligation or
restriction of any kind, even if the feedback is designated by you as confidential.
7. THAT THE SOFTWARE COMES "AS IS", WITH NO WARRANTIES. THIS
MEANS NO EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY WARRANTY, INCLUDING
WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ANY WARRANTY AGAINST
INTERFERENCE WITH YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THE SOFTWARE OR ANY
WA

Re:For your perusal

[sardiax]

the license could be better, particularly the part about them being granted back the rights to any modifications, but its nice to see microsoft releasing the source for anything at this point. :)

Re:For your perusal

[Trelane]

It's an alright license, so long as you make danged sure they don't have patents that cover the code, and you're not going to sell it.

It's very annoying that nobody's allowed to sell any derivatives but Microsoft. The GPL it ain't.

Re:For your perusal

[Anonymous Coward]

Not one but two instances of content-free karma whoring! Amazing.

If you're not in a hurry to just download the archive (warning: this is fucking huge, specifically 511MB), let's take a closer look at some of the pertinent points of that licence:

• "You may use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, subject to the restrictions in this License." In other words, no commercial use, which means no inclusion in Linux distributions and such. The only way they want anyone to be able to fetch Allegiance's source code is through their clickwrap licence.
• "If any of the Software is in binary format, you will not attempt to modify such portions of the Software, or to reverse engineer or decompile them, except and only to the extent authorized by law." Too bad if you want to examine the binary data (graphics, audio, maps...) in order to, say, figure out the formats and make your own.
• "Microsoft is granted back, without any limitations and on a royalty free basis, the rights to reproduce, install, use, modify, distribute and transfer your modifications to the Software source code or data." In other words, all your changes are belong to them, and they're thoughtfully granting themselves distribution of your code without the licensing restrictions which you get hammered with!
• "If you breach this MSR-SSLA or if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software or anyone's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically and you shall destroy all of your copies of the Software immediately. Section 5 of this MSR-SSLA [the self-granting of unlimited distribution rights, just quoted] shall survive any termination of this license." In other words, if they decide in their infinite wisdom that you're breaking their licence, you have to send all your work into the crapper.

My opinion (for all the piddling amount that an anonymous coward's opinion counts for)? Fuck this and find a Sourceforge or Freshmeat project to chip in on.

Re:For your perusal

[polyp2000]

What would happen, if a small portion of the code got used in another game under a license for example the GPL. Microsoft would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

With more and more things like this being released into the public domain, with such restrictive licensing, Open Source developers are going to have to be more and more savvy to these licensing programs. It is an ideal way for microsoft to battle against the GPL. Release source code, but with very restrictive terms... Wait for some random GPL project to insert microsoft code... come down on project like a ton of bricks, discrediting GPL in the process.

Now consider what might happen if Microsoft were to release the source code to Windows in such a restrictive manner... Its going to be very tempting isnt it...

All I am saying is, we need to be really damn careful about stuff like this. Although it is nice that Microsoft are being a little more Open about things, beware of the beast.

Re:For your perusal

[swdunlop]

As a big fan of Allegiance, I can say I'm just relieved to see the source made available.. Allegiance required a server, hosted by Microsoft, to play, and when MS rolled up the Allegiance servers due to "lack of interest", the community was devastated. Looks like 100-200 active users at any given moment, most paying a subscription fee, was an underwhelming success in their eyes.

Re:For your perusal

[Zenin]

http://www.freeallegiance.org/

We (fan community) run our own Lobby (MS gave us the Lobby server a couple years ago) and our own servers. No pay-to-play anymore. Come back and enjoy! :-)

Re:For your perusal

[Zenin]

*yawn*, whatever

For any commercial software company to do this much is amazing, doubly so for a game company, and a hundred fold over for MS to do it. So this doesn't help you make a million bucks with "your" brand new video game or further the agenda of the misnamed FSF. So what? This release does exactly what it was intended to do and it does it extremely well: It allows those of us who love the game and have been working hard to improve it for years a huge new arsenal with which to go about said improvements.

If you want to make a brand new space sim free to the public, go right ahead; it lets you do that too.

But really, boo-*&^$!ing-hoo that perhaps you can't throw yet another app into a KitchenSink(tm) Linux install. Who cares? FreeBSD solved such simple issues very cleanly nearly a decade ago now with the ports system, why can't Linux?

Re:For your perusal

[Trelane]

Ummm ... hate to break this to you Trelane, but if it were under the GPL you aren't allowed to sell any derivatives either as anything you make is GPL!

Umm, wow. You're gonna have to "hate to break it to" SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, Sun, Lindows, and a host of others, 'cause they're selling GPLed code right now!!

Seriously, though. GPL doesn't prevent selling.

Re:For your perusal

[Anonymous Coward]

Your UID clearly shows that you are Satan.

Suggesting Microsoft would do something nice just adds to my hypothesis of you being Lucifer.

Anyone care to say that I am wrong?

Re:For your perusal

[Clockwurk]

You may use this Software for any non-commercial purpose, subject to the restrictions in this License."

What is the probem here? Microsoft doesn't want you selling their game. Why should SuSE or Mandrake make money off of a product Microsoft paid for?

"If any of the Software is in binary format, you will not attempt to modify such portions of the Software, or to reverse engineer or decompile them, except and only to the extent authorized by law."

This is probably for the benefit of tech that MS has liscensed, but has not been given rights to distribute the source for. Most likely the reverse engineering for interoperability clause would apply here in the case that you were reverse engineering formats.

"Microsoft is granted back, without any limitations and on a royalty free basis, the rights to reproduce, install, use, modify, distribute and transfer your modifications to the Software source code or data."

Wow, that sounds just like the GPL (must give back modifications). Effects will be the same as the GPL, if you use it for personal (non-distributed) use, your modifications are your own (how will MS know about them), but if you ditribute it, they have rights to the changes.

If you breach this MSR-SSLA or if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software or anyone's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically and you shall destroy all of your copies of the Software immediately. Section 5 of this MSR-SSLA [the self-granting of unlimited distribution rights, just quoted] shall survive any termination of this license.

Again, this is the same as any liscense (GPL included). If you don't agree with the liscense or violate it, you aren't granted any additional rights (the rights to use the game, and distribute modifications) other than what copyright allows. The GPL does the exact same thing. The patents part it to protect against incidents like SCO. The Apache liscense has the same clause.

Re:For your perusal

[ryants]

Wow, that sounds just like the GPL (must give back modifications).

You couldn't be more wrong. The GPL does not require you to release your modified version.

Repeat 20 times for good measure.

your modifications are your own (how will MS know about them)

No, they aren't. That's exactly the point. Even if MS doesn't know about them, it's still theirs, by the letter and spirit of that clause.

Re:For your perusal

[node 3]

Wow, that sounds just like the GPL (must give back modifications).

Except with the GPL you get compensation in kind with what the free software community receives (ie: the code becomes free for all). With the MS license, MS can use your code to make money, but you can't use theirs to make money.

In other words, the GPL is an equal two-way street, while MS's is a one-way street in which they have allowed a few pedestrians to walk in the opposite direction.

How would you feel if you enhanced this game only to find these enhancements rolled into a new game without receiving compensation? Potentially, one could take this MS source and write what would essentially be Alliance 2, which MS could take back and sell as Alliance 2, and you can do nothing about it (except buy the new version for $59 at Electronics Boutique like everyone else).

This is a case of what's Microsoft's is Microsoft's and what's yours is Microsoft's.

Why do you think MS hates Open Source so much? Because they can't keep control once they give it up. MS can't play well with others. It's not in their DNA. Compare this with Apple who distributes an OS (Darwin), server apps (QuickTime/Darwin Streaming Server), a web browser (Konqueror/Safari), and probably more, under an Open Source license.

Re:For your perusal

[0x0d0a]

What would happen, if a small portion of the code got used in another game under a license for example the GPL. Microsoft would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

I'm sure that Microsoft would be more than enthusiastic about turnabout. This is *precisely* what they've been complaining about with the GPL -- that it's risky that an engineer with a tight timeline might simply grab all that tanalizing open source sitting out in the open to solve a problem, then claim that the software was written by him. We have to play by the same rules that Microsoft does -- following rules on each side is only fair.

And if Microsoft incorporated, say, chunks of glibc into Windows's closed-source C runtime, I think it's a fair bet to say that the FSF would drag them through the coals both legally and from a PR standpoint.

Re:For your perusal

[MrResistor]

I hate Microsoft as much as the next /.er, but I think you're over-reacting. SuSE uses some similar terms in the license for Yast, as does id in the QPL, as does even the FSF in the GPL. There's nothing onerous here.

Better to focus on what it doesn't prevent you from doing, I say. I see nothing there that prevents me from porting it to Linux, for example. Nor do I see anything preventing me from redistributing it, as long is it's not for a commercial purpose.

This is a big step for MS, and an important one, I think. We should not discourage them.

Re:For your perusal

[Zenin]

No, they aren't. That's exactly the point. Even if MS doesn't know about them, it's still theirs, by the letter and spirit of that clause.

No, they aren't "theirs". They are still yours, to do with as you please, save for allowing MS to do with as they please as well (should they even care). You aren't handing copyright over to MS of your work, only agreeing that MS may use it gratias(sp?) as well. But MS can't restrict your usage of your copyrighted code in other projects or restrict is use by others beyond any limitations you place on it yourself.

They give you 1/2 GB and years of work to do with nearly as you please for free. Should they find something interesting of yours built from this, they get to use that for free. But MS still owns their code and you still own yours, which means both are still free to use their own code in whatever other projects they like completely free of the above agreement.

Basically yes, it's 99.9% of what the GPL does in practice.

But who cares? This isn't meant by anyone, the Allegiance devs at MS or the fan base, as some kind of FSF/GPL/OSS-Zelot "victory". If you love Allegiance and have some ideas to make it better, this greatly helps you do that and for that intention the license is a perfect fit. If you want to profit off the hard work and huge cash outlay MS paid to create this or hijack it as a sword for the OSS movement in general caring little for Allegiance, then quite frankly you can kiss my ass.

Because nobody has yet played it.

[cgenman]

The Allegiance Demo is available here.

Re:Because nobody has yet played it.

[Zenin]

I'd be amazed if that demo actually still worked...

Allegiance is a multiplayer-only game and requires servers that once were hosted only by MS. The game has changed so drastically since that demo there's no way it would even be able to connect to the modern lobby server. -For starters you'd need to teak your reg just to try as the current lobby and auto-update servers aren't hosted by MS anymore.

The real game is a smaller download then most modern demos anyway, so just pick it up from http://www.FreeAllegiance.org/ and get your flight suit on! :-)

Linux Port?

[freakmn]

First off, why is this article not on the front page?

Second, I don't see anything denying the ability to create a Linux port. Is this right? I must admit I'm very surprised to hear this. I've never heard of this game, but I'm intrigued by the fact that Microsoft is releasing source code to the public!

Is this some sort of trick? I find it ironic that microsoft is giving allegiance to open source. Sure, it's not free (as in liberated), but it's a step in the right direction.

Re:Linux Port?

[Arkham]

Certainly you could do a Linux port. However, you'd have to replace the calls to DirectX 7.0 with calls to something more cross platform like OpenGL. This can be done of course, as you can see from the Mac port of Halo.

Re:Linux Port?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isnt a trick. Allegiance was a product of Microsoft Research which is just a bunch of MS funded groups. This is why Allegiance never really got the ad support it should have gotten. It mostly was and experiment that turned out to be one of the best mutliplayer space sim games ever made, but unfortunatly didnt get a big following due to lack of ad revenue. It was eventaually taken off support and allowed to be distributed for free.

The giving the source was in repsonse to the still going strong community that have been trying for a while now to get the source.

Re:Linux Port?

[freidog]

The licesnse wouldn't restrict you from porting to linux. So long as you met the other guidlines, no profit, stays under MS' liscense ect.

However, it is a DirectX game. I haven't looked through it yet, but i would assume they used DirectInput, DirectSound ect in addition to Direct3D. So moving it over would not be a trivial task.

Re:Linux Port?

[Zenin]

Allegiance came from MS Research Games, not MS Games, and infact was built to be a testing ground for Direct* pieces at the time (in particular DirectPlay was completely forged in Allegance). The fact it turned into a commercial game at all was a bit of happenstance, not original intention.

So yes, it's heavily Direct biased, likely including "beta" versions of some DirectX pieces that won't map directly to any real DirectX release. If this makes it harder to port (unknown/never published DirectX features) or easier (above are in the Allegiance code and thus come with it), we don't know yet.

Re:Linux Port?

[*weasel]

[What do they have to lose?]

time and effort.

who in the open source community would buy a commercial version of a free toy? unless of course, the commercial version sported worthwhile content not available for free. in that case, who cares if microsoft is putting worthwhile content onto linux?

more likely, they wouldn't advertise a linux port the same way they didn't advertise the windows version, so they'd just be throwing more time and money at a project that would ultimately be a loss. if they weren't going to honestly try to make money off a windows version, i sincerely doubt they'd try to make money off a linux port.

microsoft has never been an opponent of open source software in general. even in their thickest fud they've only labelled it as inappropriate for commercial use.

seeing as how they're releasing this expressly forbidding commercial use, they're still being consistent - though the action does contradict the rabidly anti-MS propaganda that /. has been known to generate.

simply, this is a work of Microsoft Research - and they're forward looking enough to decide to release this to their rabid fan-base, rather than leaving all that fan-content legally actionable.

the license is worded solely to prevent any competitors from profiting directly off MS's innovation, while retaining their existing rights and preventing themselves from being legally actionable should they ever sell another product that used some of that code.

Nintendo Releases Virtual Boy Game Source Code

[pudge_lightyear]

Nintendo today, released to the open source community the source code for the virtual boy smash hit "Panic Bomber".

From Nintendo VP of Open Source, "We feel that we're doing the world a service by releasing such a popular game to the masses for their free consumption and alteration."

Linus Torvalds says, "The open source community has a new friend in Nintendo. Of course, releasing a free dev kit for the gamecube would be nice, but this... this is even better. We can now program for the virtual boy."

Slashdot user TechBoy880 had this to say, "My life is now complete... I can now mod my favorite game of all time. Now we just need to press Nintendo to release the hardware specs and a dev kit to go along with this..."

Re:Nintendo Releases Virtual Boy Game Source Code

[American AC in Paris]

Heh. Thing is, having slavishly played Allegiance for some time back when it came out, it's a wicked cool game. It nailed a perfect balance between first-person space shooter and RTS, it had 'factions' with interesting distinctions between their ships, it had a very fun tech tree that let you explore a bunch of different strategies for gameplay, and it relied heavily on coordination, strategy, and team play.

Of course, it had problems because of that last part--even the slightest bit of griefing or rambo syndrome and your team was in trouble. IF you had a bad commander, your team was screwed. If the sides weren't well balanced, it was very hard for the inferior team to pull off a win. If the sides were balanced, it was an insanely fun and intense game, even better than Tribes was.

They didn't really market this one much, and it was nigh unplayable over modem connections and residential broadband was still in its infancy. Had this game come out today with some decent marketing, I think it could easily become one of the "Best Games of 2004"...

Re:Nintendo Releases Virtual Boy Game Source Code

[Techboy880]

The thing is, not only should they release the hardware specs but they should also release the hardware. Just as software wants to be free, so does hardware. Seriously, Virtual Boys are like $100 on Ebay. My allowance is $40 a month. There's no way I'll ever be able to get one.

Nintendo needs to step up here.

WineX

[polyp2000]

This source code is going to have a lot of useful information for the transgaming guys.

Shame it doesn't happen more.

[freidog]

I appluad MS for doing this. (-1 Troll i know)
I would like to see it happen much more often.

They can't be making money off this game anymore, so why not give back to the community.
Let those who love the game make it better, or atlest better to them.

Relic recently released the source to HomeWorld 1, and i know many people (including myself to a small extent) have been pouring through it to implement the features that we thought should be in the game. Right click movement, better combat, simpler camera control, better UI, ect.

The multiplayer nature of Allegaince may make it less friendly to such changes, but i do look forward to seeing the creativity of the community at work. (and who knows, an allegiance single player campaign may come from this)

Nice!

[Xentor]

I must say I'm impressed! I've been playing this game with said community for months now, and on the alleg.net forums, people have actually discussed trying to buy the source code from MS. Now that it's out there, I really can't wait to see what kind of mods the community will come out with.

My respect for MS just jumped up a notch... Still negative, but closer to zero.

Re:Ahead of its Time?

[Zenin]

Yep, the "FreeZone" and the "AllegianceZone", they had it up at game launch.

Eventually they made the AZ free too...then a bit later dropped the AZ servers so it was only community hosted servers...then a bit later dropped the lobby and we had to create a utility that routed "local lan" DPlay connections to servers out on the internet (SOVRoute). Some time later MS gave the community the Lobby server install and some other toys and we got the FreeZone lobby back up on your own hardware.

Currently, as has been for a couple years, the community owns the Lobby server, the game servers, the auto-update server, etc. This source will help us greatly in restoring the AZ features as well (but of course it will remain free for all).

Re:Best Game Nobody Played for a Reason.

[DrEldarion]

So... it actually worked fine. You were just unwilling to comply with the conditions it worked in.

Re:Best Game Nobody Played for a Reason.

[EvanTaylor]

I take it you do not play any online games then, because they all need some ports open to play.

License not *quite* that innocent or a turnaround

[0x0d0a]

No, this license is decidedly unlike the GPL. This license is somewhat akin to the Mozilla Public License (which was dropped due to people complaining). Basically, Microsoft and Microsoft alone gets rights roughly equivalent (though slightly more in their favor) than the BSD license. They get royalty-free rights to do anything they want to with your code.

On the other hand, the rights granted to *non*-Microsoft entities are much more restrictive -- non-commercial only.

Effectively, this makes you a free coder for Microsoft -- the only company that can ever financially benefit from the code you produce is Microsoft.

This is *not* a turnaround for Microsoft (other than the fact that they are opening some of their own code, which is a change). From a commercial standpoint, they are giving up zero IP (they do not allow you to use copyrighted or patented information, which may be present in their release. This is very different from the GPL, where copyrighted data must be available for commercial use, and you *cannot* have patents on methods used in the software. Microsoft has previously promoted BSD-like licenses that would allow them profit. This license is notable in that it is GPL-incompatible.

From a strategic point of view, there is little Microsoft stands to risk here. The program is, as others have pointed out, written in DirectX, and would be difficult to port to anything other than Windows (well, perhaps other than the X-Box). It might assist a small amount in improving WINE, but that's about it.

I'm not sure whether this includes a data file release -- this is the only thing that weirds me out, as doing so would be extremely unusual. I would expect not, but ~600 MB seems excessive for source code alone. Perhaps if someone could check this out?

That being said, I'm certainly not going to complain -- I see very few ways in which we are worse off after this release. This is a clear win for former fans and players of the game. Microsoft *has* done a few notable things that I would not have expected of them. They have not placed legal restrictions on porting, though there may be a practical limitation. I suppose one could argue that Microsoft is hoping to start a trend of companies doing open-source releases chosing not to use the GPL, but that seems a bit conspiracy theory-oriented even for Slashdot.

The only concern I can think of is Microsoft's worries about PR with this move. It may not be much of an issue -- recently, there has been a good amount of business hyping of "open source". Microsoft hasn't been bashing "open source" much in the past year or so -- just the GPL. It's a reasonable supposition that this has been intentional from a strategic standpoint.

Another weird thing is that Microsoft Research is the organization doing the release. That's very, very odd. I strongly suspect that Microsoft Research is *not* where the entertainment division is located (Bungie isn't a subdivision of Microsoft Reesearch), so unless they are responsible for old software, I can't see why they're involved. Could be that they're a bit more academia-oriented, and that there's some scientist pushing for open-sourcing something that doesn't have significant IP value to Microsoft any more.

If Microsoft wants to test the waters for non-GPL open source possibilities, this is a very good, safe way for them to do so. This game still has active users. Game technology moves so quickly that a four-year-old-game has little that folks might steal from them -- and in any case, Microsoft is not releasing any of their previous IP.

I *really* wish Microsoft would open-source the Close Combat series (they probably don't own copyright on it, but it's a nice thought). Microsoft or no, I'd be willing to buy copies of all of the series if I could get an open source Linux-compatible copy -- that series is phenomenal.

NPL, not MPL

[0x0d0a]

Ooops -- I meant the Netscape Public License, not the Mozilla Public License. Heh.

Re:Tight Code!

[Zenin]

Note the "source" download also includes all raw media files, including all sound files, image files (bitmaps...), and the WAV file format CD music tracks.

95% of the source zip is media...