Slashdot Mirror


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!"

21 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. For your perusal by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:For your perusal by sardiax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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. :)

    2. Re:For your perusal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:For your perusal by polyp2000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    4. Re:For your perusal by Zenin · · Score: 4, Informative

      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! :-)

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    5. Re:For your perusal by Zenin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *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?

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    6. Re:For your perusal by Trelane · · Score: 4, Informative
      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.
      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
    7. Re:For your perusal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

    8. Re:For your perusal by Clockwurk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:For your perusal by ryants · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.
      --

      Ryan T. Sammartino
      "Ancora imparo"

    10. Re:For your perusal by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:For your perusal by MrResistor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  2. Because nobody has yet played it. by cgenman · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Allegiance Demo is available here.

  3. Linux Port? by freakmn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    warning: This post is likely to contain gobs of dripping sarcasm. Consume at your own risk.
    1. Re:Linux Port? by freidog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Linux Port? by Zenin · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      My /. uid is better then your /. uid
  4. Nintendo Releases Virtual Boy Game Source Code by pudge_lightyear · · Score: 4, Funny

    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..."

  5. Shame it doesn't happen more. by freidog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)

  6. Nice! by Xentor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "The amount of intelligence on this planet is a constant. The population is growing." -Cole's Axiom
  7. License not *quite* that innocent or a turnaround by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Tight Code! by Zenin · · Score: 3, Informative

    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...

    --
    My /. uid is better then your /. uid