Microsoft Releases MechCommander 2 Source Code

Not really shocking by reanjr · 2006-03-21 10:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Don't know how this is that shocking, MS has been releasing shared source all over the place, including Allegiance, a multiplayer opline space real time strategy/shooter.

Re:Not really shocking by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 11:20 · Score: 0

...which saved Allegiance from dying. It's still a great game, but I quit playing when I found out my girlfriend was cheating on me with one of the pilots from BlackShadow. :(
Re:Not really shocking by Is0m0rph · 2006-03-22 07:32 · Score: 1

Hmm I didn't know Allegiance still lives. Loved that game throughout the beta of it. I'm going to have to play it again.
Re:Not really shocking by Xentor · 2006-03-23 03:08 · Score: 1

It's at http://www.freeallegiance.org/

--
"The amount of intelligence on this planet is a constant. The population is growing." -Cole's Axiom

Cool! by mrseigen · 2006-03-21 10:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

More open sourced games can only be a good thing. How does Microsoft's shared-source license affect me as a professional game developer, though? I'm afraid of looking through a lot of other games' source code for fear of taint.

Re:Cool! by GeekDork · 2006-03-21 10:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is kind of paranoid. It's like saying that after looking at, say, the Linux source for some drivers, you can never write a closed-source driver, or that you can never, ever write a game after having your hands at the TuxRacer source (or even after downloading the source, it's the thought that counts).

--
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Re:Cool! by JohnFluxx · 2006-03-21 10:46 · Score: 1

It's not paranoia when MS markets shared source as 'open source but you retain your IP'
Re:Cool! by Kjella · 2006-03-21 11:14 · Score: 1

This is kind of paranoid. It's like saying that after looking at, say, the Linux source for some drivers, you can never write a closed-source driver, or that you can never, ever write a game after having your hands at the TuxRacer source (or even after downloading the source, it's the thought that counts).

Half the question isn't whether or not you can, but whether someone will make a quasi-legitimate lawsuit (i.e. not so completely without merit that it'll be rejected, see SCO vs IBM). This rarely happens with closed to open source because few dare fuck with their employer like that, it rarely happens with open to closed source because well, it's hard to tell. But when the source is "open" in shared source, and the result is "open" as in open source, well... I'm just saying it is a whole lot easier for a litigious country to create a bunch of infringement lawsuits.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Cool! by mikael · 2006-03-21 11:20 · Score: 1

Download it from a internet cafe to an external USB drive. Then your download can't be traced.

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 13:36 · Score: 0

as a professional game developer, ... I'm afraid of looking through a lot of other games' source code for fear of taint.

As well you should be. If you're producing a closed-source product, not letting your customers see your source code, then keep your eyes off other people's code.
Of course, even if you're not seeking to make closed-source products, distrusting Microsoft's motives is just good common sense.
Re:Cool! by mrchaotica · 2006-03-21 15:39 · Score: 1

Wow, what genious! And what happens when you include some of that code (or something substantially similar, intentionally or not) in a Free Software program you release (with your identity attached), pray tell?

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Cool! by Pofy · 2006-03-21 19:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

>More open sourced games can only be a good thing. How does Microsoft's
>shared-source license affect me as a professional game developer, though?
>I'm afraid of looking through a lot of other games' source code for fear of
>taint.

I guess as a professional book writer I would have to stop reading other books, otherwsie my own books could be "tainted" or "contaminated" by what I read. What a shock!!!
Re:Cool! by KDR_11k · 2006-03-21 19:48 · Score: 1

Problem is, the same applies to those who wish to use a license that is simply incompatible with the GPL, like BSD. The GPL is almost a minefield if you wish to retain your ability to release code under BSD.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:Cool! by Half+a+dent · 2006-03-21 20:43 · Score: 1

Microsoft's lawyers, "All your code are belong to us"

(Sorry, someone had to say it)
Re:Cool! by Threni · 2006-03-21 21:02 · Score: 2, Funny

> I'm afraid of looking through a lot of other games' source code for fear of
> taint.

I'm sure their code isn't *that* bad. Just be sure that if you see any confusingly named variables or goto-like unstructure jumps to quickly shut the window and read some Knuth for a few minutes...that ought to do the trick...
Re:Cool! by mgblst · 2006-03-21 21:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Hence the trial over the da vinci code. Becareful what you mock, what may seem ridiculous today, is the law tomorrow.

Of course this trial hasn't ended yet, and the decision may go against the so-called infringed, but it seems to be taking a while for judgement.
Re:Cool! by Pofy · 2006-03-22 01:00 · Score: 1

I never claimed no one writing books might have copied other books. The point was the stance to not read other books at all to avoid such "tainting" was rediculous.
Re:Cool! by wed128 · 2006-03-22 04:44 · Score: 1

Easy...don't do that.
Re:Cool! by rebelcan · 2006-03-22 07:02 · Score: 1

Release it to the internet from that same internet cafe? With an anonymous email attatched?

--
God is dead -- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead -- God
Zombie Nietzsche lives! -- Zombie Nietzsche
Re:Cool! by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-03-22 10:56 · Score: 1

Half the question isn't whether or not you can, but whether someone will make a quasi-legitimate lawsuit (i.e. not so completely without merit that it'll be rejected, see SCO vs IBM).
Correct, however, note that most people couldn't afford to be IBM in SCO vs IBM.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:Cool! by Breakfast+Pants · 2006-03-22 16:50 · Score: 1

What? You didn't know, for instance, that movie directors aren't allowed to watch movies unless they make them themselves?

--

--

WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-23 03:38 · Score: 0

I'm afraid of looking through a lot of other games' source code for fear of taint.

Someone's going to put their taint in the source code? Ewwwwww...
Re:Cool! by patternjuggler · 2006-03-23 03:41 · Score: 1

>More open sourced games can only be a good thing. How does Microsoft's
>shared-source license affect me as a professional game developer, though?
>I'm afraid of looking through a lot of other games' source code for fear of
>taint.

I guess as a professional book writer I would have to stop reading other books, otherwsie my own books could be "tainted" or "contaminated" by what I read. What a shock!!!

I think there are a lot of authors who avoid reading other books, at least ones with very strong styles, while in the midst of writing their own work. Not for any legal reasons, it's just that when they read something and really get into it their own writing style is affected. Later on, the author might reread their writing and be annoyed by the change to a 'voice' that is not their own, so they just avoid the possibility altogether.

I'm sure there a even a few very anal about not looking like they took anybody else's ideas, so don't read anything by other authors in the same genre. Again, not for legal reasons, they just want to be as original seeming as possible. I've read books by authors who all know and read each other and it is pretty obvious that they are riffing and remixing each other's ideas. That's all well and good for them, but some authors don't go in for that.

There's got to be a Mr. Show fan out their with a joke about 'fear of taint'...
Re:Cool! by mrchaotica · 2006-03-23 07:01 · Score: 1

So in other words, once you look at "shared" source, you can never write software publically again. That is not a solution!

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-25 04:15 · Score: 0

But if a movie director reads a script on spec, then goes off and makes a movie virtually identical to it, the author of the original script has a right to sue the crap out of him for nicking his idea and not paying him.
Re:Cool! by Hal_Porter · 2006-03-25 07:47 · Score: 1

Hmm, I could start a ECT based mind wiping business.

Actually doing poach jobs on paranoid armchair lawyers all day would give me so much job satisfaction, I wouldn't even need to charge. Just the cost of the Joules delivered and a little extra to keep the office in coffee and broadband.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Cool! by Breakfast+Pants · 2006-03-26 04:23 · Score: 1

Great, that has nothing to do with being instantly tainted by viewing code. Of course if you view code and make something "virtually identical to it" you are still in for trouble.

--

--

WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-29 06:07 · Score: 0

Actually that's not as ridiculous as you might think. Many famous painters, composers and book writers found that their art was "contaminated" by what they were reading/looking at/listening to. It's commonly known that a number of great classical compositions are unconscious plagiarisms of other, less known compositions by less known artists.
balrog-kun

license? by Eightyford · 2006-03-21 10:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I checked the link, but I couldn't find what license the code is released under. What does Shared Source mean?

--
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters

Re:license? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 10:38 · Score: 0

MS's definition of "Shared Source" is basically "This is ours and you aren't allowed to do anything with it but look at it, and if you write real open source we'll claim you've been stealing ours".
Re:license? by biocute · 2006-03-21 10:45 · Score: 1

The history of Shared Source is long, but in layman's term -- After reviewing the potential and limitation of Open Source, Microsoft has instead decided to adopt Shared Source, which not only opens up source code, but allows anyone to use freely, freelier than free Open Source.

The only major difference is once a Shared Source is shared, it can be modified, opened, shared or even closed in future release.

--
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
Re:license? by dedazo · 2006-03-21 10:45 · Score: 2, Informative

The "shared source" concept encompasses more than one license. You can read about that here.
As for this specific release, who knows. I doubt it's going to be GPL'ed but I don't think it wil be too restrictive, unless they've gone totally berzerk and want to prevent you from "developing a comepting product" with the source or some such nonesense... though I wouldn't put it past them at all.
A lot of these releases by Microsoft (with a few exceptions like WiX or WTL) are really just meant to be useful talking points when certain arguments come up.

--
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Re:license? by st1d · 2006-03-21 10:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Excellent, just as MS intends the message to be received. Those brain implants must be working. :)

--
Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
Re:license? by theCoder · 2006-03-21 11:22 · Score: 1

According to Wikipedia, "[Shared Source] is not open source according to the Open Source Definition, because none of the license programs allows for commercial use of modified code". I guess it's not "freelier" than Open Source.

--
"Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
Re:license? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 11:22 · Score: 0

What does Shared Source mean?

basically "All your ideas are belong to Bill."
Re:license? by TekGoNos · 2006-03-21 11:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Shared Source is at least 3 different licences :

Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) like BSD
Microsoft Community License (Ms-CL) kind of like LGPL or MPL : you must relicence files that contain Ms-CL code as Ms-CL, but can use them in any way you want.
Microsoft Reference License (Ms-RL) - you may only look at it

And I hve no clue which of these apply for this game. I even downloaded the ReadMe.rtf (rtf? from Microsoft?), but it only says that you need directx from feb 2006 to compile the "MC2 Viewer". (And I won't download 1GB to maybe find out what licence it is ...)

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
Re:license? by fm6 · 2006-03-21 12:58 · Score: 1, Troll

Even within Wikipedia's loose definitions, that's not an authoritative statement, since it doesn't even try to follow the NPOV. Really, nothing is "according to Wikipedia", it's just according to the last person to edit the passage you're reading.
Re:license? by gstoddart · 2006-03-21 13:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft has instead decided to adopt Shared Source, which not only opens up source code, but allows anyone to use freely, freelier than free Open Source.

The only major difference is once a Shared Source is shared, it can be modified, opened, shared or even closed in future release.

I find it unlikely it's more free than, say, a BSD license or the Apache licenses.

And, depending on which of the shared source licenses this is released under, what you say may not be true.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:license? by MostlyHarmless · 2006-03-21 14:06 · Score: 1

Even within Wikipedia's loose definitions, that's not an authoritative statement, since it doesn't even try to follow the NPOV. Really, nothing is "according to Wikipedia", it's just according to the last person to edit the passage you're reading.

Except that the statement in question happens to be both accurate and NPOV -- the latter because it says "The OSI does not consider 'shared source' to be Open Source" and not "'shared source' is not Open Source". Have I just fed a troll?

--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Re:license? by fm6 · 2006-03-21 15:27 · Score: 0

Yuck! Troll food!
The statement you quote is not the statement I was quibling with. Which was: "[Shared Source] is not open source according to the Open Source Definition, because none of the license programs allows for commercial use of modified code". To be authoritative and NPOV, that sentence needs an "according to...".
Every Wikipedia contributor honors NPOV, but few seem to understand when they're violating it. I used to make a recreation of bringing up random Wikipedia pages and doing some basic editing. If I could fix the page without changing what the authors were trying to say, I'd go ahead and edit. Otherwise, I'd leave suggestions on the talk page, and sometimes I'd slap an appropriate tag on content I considered dubious.
Once I found this statement: "[Kraven] was obviously inspired by the classic short story, The Most Dangerous Game." Now, it's not unreasonable to suggest that there's a connection between the comic book character and the short story. But "obvious" is pretty damned subjective. Ideally, that statement should be backed up by references that show it's not just the author's opinion. (In a real encylopedia, the editors would probably insist on it.) Failing that, you should word it so that opinion doesn't get passed off as fact.
After much patient persuasion, I got the guy who owned that text to change "obviously" to "most likely". But only after much patient persuasion of somebody who just didn't see that he was documenting his own opinion. And that was with somebody who was open-minded about the possibility that they were wrong. If he'd been one of those brittle personalities who takes every friendly criticism as a personal attack, I never would have gotten the change made without some serious escalation. Which is something I had to do too often, and got no pleasure from. Which is why I no longer edit on Wikipedia.
Re:license? by DeafByBeheading · 2006-03-21 15:57 · Score: 1

(rtf? from Microsoft?)

Well, they did develop it...

--
Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
Re:license? by smallpaul · 2006-03-21 17:13 · Score: 1

What in the wikipedia entry is biased? What is inaccurate? The grandparent's quote was quite reasonable and mild. It is an indisputable fact that shared source is not open source. That's why it has a different term. Similarly, zebras are not horses. Am I biased for pointing that out?
Re:license? by forgotten_my_nick · 2006-03-21 18:33 · Score: 1

My understanding of Shared source was that it was a trap. There is probably a /. story on it from years ago (maybe 3 ;) ).

As I understand shared source has huge implications if you plan to write your own system. Even if you don't put any of the code into your program having just looked at the program makes it that MS is allowed take your idea.

I wouldn't touch the code if you can't read the whole license tbh.
Re:license? by fm6 · 2006-03-21 19:27 · Score: 1

Where did I use the word "bias"? I didn't say the quote was biased. I didn't even disagree with the facts as stated. Indeed, I think the statement is probably correct — though I don't know enough about the issues to make a statement with certainty. And the statement could have been added to Wikipedia by somebody who doesn't know much more than me. That person certainly hasn't given me any reason to think he's an authority on the matter.
Even if you happen to agree with it, you can't take an unsubstantiated statement from an unknown source, and quote it as if it had some kind of authority. (If you do, you're just quoting yourself!) And that's all a lot of Wikipedia is, unsubstantiated statements from unknown sources. Dressing it up as "encylopedia articles" doesn't change that.
Wikipedia actually has a rule that you can't add material unless you can give sources. But I've never seen that rule enforced, and maybe 10% of the content actually has sources attached to it. Until that changes, nobody can cite Wikipedia as a authority for anything.
Re:license? by xtracto · 2006-03-21 21:10 · Score: 1

ReadMe.rtf f (rtf? from Microsoft?)

HaHa, I love that format, in some way I believe all the Readme files should end in RTF, it always reminds me of the RTFM acronym

--
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Re:license? by rtb61 · 2006-03-21 23:58 · Score: 1

Naughty, naughty, as always with microsoft the devil is in the detail, shared source is not always shared source http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/sharedsourcelicenses.mspx it varies.
Microsoft says shared source but sometimes they don't say what they mean, for that you have to read the fine print.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:license? by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-03-22 10:58 · Score: 1

It would do great benefit to society if people would remain silent unless they knew what they were talking about.
Case in point.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:license? by Hal_Porter · 2006-03-25 08:12 · Score: 1

If you follow the link in the EULA, you get this

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?Pos tID=310374&SiteID=1

Shared Source Limited Permissive License for use of MechCommander® 2

This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.

1. Definitions
The terms reproduce, reproduction and distribution have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law.
You means the licensee of the software.
Licensed patents means any Microsoft patent claims which read directly on the software as distributed by Microsoft under this license.

2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, Microsoft grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce the software, prepare derivative works of the software and distribute the software or any derivative works that you create.

(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, Microsoft grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under licensed patents to make, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, and/or otherwise dispose of the software or derivative works of the software.

So you can create and sell derivative works, and you won't get clobbered with patent lawsuits from Microsoft. There aren't any obligations, like for example having to release the source code to any of your code which you statically link to it, like with GPL code.

3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) Limitation on Commercial Distribution- Notwithstanding the rights granted in section 2(A) above, you are not granted any rights to commercially distribute any artwork from the software (Art Assets) in any derivative work or otherwise. Microsoft grants you a limited, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to use, reproduce and distribute the Art Assets on a non-commercial basis only.

But the bitmap/texture files can only be used non commercially.

(B) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you any rights to use Microsofts name, logo, or trademarks.

So you can't claim that your game is linked to Microsoft.

(C) If you begin patent litigation against Microsoft over patents that you think may apply to the software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), your license to the software ends automatically.

And if you sue them, your license goes away.

(D) If you distribute copies of the software or derivative works, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.

This is like in the old BSD license

(E) If you distribute the software or derivative works in source code form you may do so only under this license (i.e., you must include a complete copy of this license with your distribution), and if you distribute the software or derivative works in compiled or object code form you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.

All licenses say this, otherwise you could take GPL code and distribute it under a different license.

(F) The software is licensed as-is. You bear the risk of using it. Microsoft gives no express warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, Microsoft excludes the implied warranties of merchantability,

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:license? by Hast · 2006-03-31 23:40 · Score: 1

The statement you quote is not the statement I was quibling with. Which was: "[Shared Source] is not open source according to the Open Source Definition, because none of the license programs allows for commercial use of modified code". To be authoritative and NPOV, that sentence needs an "according to...".

You mean like the part above? Like exactly what you quoted?

I don't think it needs a second "according to" in the same sentence if that is what you are implying. The "because" is not something that the writing is argumenting but according to the OSD. Besides, it's a fact that SS doesn't allow commercial use, if you read the license (as I have) you'll find that.

What license? by chill · 2006-03-21 10:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Downloading source is great, but not if looking at said source "contaminates" you. They call the GPL viral, but what if in the networking code for this "shared source" game they have all sorts of stuff that would help the SAMBA team? Can they use it? Hell, can they even look at it and still be able to contribute to SAMBA?

Heck, what about WINE? Is this something they should grab, or treat like free chocolate coated leprosy tablets?

-Charles

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

Re:What license? by minus_273 · 2006-03-21 11:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

not could happen. Did happen. ReactOS which is making an open source NT/2000 clone got infected with tainted (windows 2000) code and a all hell broke loose.

--
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Re:What license? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 12:03 · Score: 0

ReactOS didn't get any of the win2k or shared source code added, the 'issues' that come up were concerns that some of the code that was reverse engineered wasn't done in a 'clean room' style. The thing is different contries have different definitions of what type of reverse engineering are legal, and in some countries the person that reverse engineers the code can also reimplement it, but not in all (like the US).
Re:What license? by roystgnr · 2006-03-21 12:04 · Score: 1

They call the GPL viral, but what if in the networking code for this "shared source" game they have all sorts of stuff that would help the SAMBA team?

I doubt it.

Can they use it?

Probably not. They could legally copy small bits of code and reimplement interfaces, but it's a good bet that anything large enough to be useful would be too large to be used legally.

Hell, can they even look at it and still be able to contribute to SAMBA?

Of course they can. I can see why people are paranoid about being "contaminated" by other's intellectual property (wasn't clean room reverse engineering how Compaq successfully defended itself from IBM's lawsuits?), but legally copyright is copyright. Reporters are still allowed to read other newspapers, authors are still allowed to read other books, musicians are still allowed to listen to other songs, screenwriters are still allowed to watch other movies, and yes, programmers are still allowed to read other source code.
Re:What license? by chill · 2006-03-21 12:11 · Score: 1

...authors are still allowed to read other books, musicians are still allowed to listen to other songs, screenwriters are still allowed to watch other movies,...

All of those examples have led to lawsuits where a subsequent work looked too much like a "parent" work to some minds, and they sued. Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code) is currently being sued in Britain because of this very thing. I believe the word is "derivative", and what I was alluding to.

I'm leaning more and more towards Shakespeare's idea...

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:What license? by minus_273 · 2006-03-21 12:43 · Score: 1

um, i think that is what people were talking about here with contamination.

--
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Re:What license? by fm6 · 2006-03-21 12:49 · Score: 1

You've got a very good point. In fact, that's the crucial assumption in clean room design, without which IBM will still have the only workable PC bios!
Re:What license? by complete+loony · 2006-03-21 15:09 · Score: 1

Mmmmmm forbidden chocolate coated leprosy tablets...

--
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Re:What license? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 15:47 · Score: 0

Then you think wrong. Cleanroom reverse engineering refers to using one person to document a program's outputs given some inputs, writing a specification for a program with the same functionality, and finally passing it off to another programmer to implement the specification. It has nothing to do with 'source code infection'.
Re:What license? by Pofy · 2006-03-21 19:12 · Score: 1

>Downloading source is great, but not if looking at said
>source "contaminates" you.

I guess that is why no sane musicioan ever listens, and more important, never looks at the scores (or is it notes?), of other music at all!
Re:What license? by Tweekster · 2006-03-22 07:15 · Score: 1

Can I read a book and still be an author....yes. same with code. If you intently study code then go an immediately write the same thing you will have probs. If I look at it today, see how a couple of things work, then go write some different code next week, it isnt a problem.. The tained by viewing scenario is fully bullshit.

--
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis

W00T! by Average_Joe_Sixpack · 2006-03-21 10:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Not since Gorilla.bas have I been this excited!!!

Re:W00T! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 13:33 · Score: 0

What about Nibbles.bas?

...aaaa, childhood memories.
First piece of code that I understood, and fixed (good ol' divide by zero error on the Pentium 233MHz).
Re:W00T! by Bob54321 · 2006-03-21 16:07 · Score: 1

I spent hours playing with this game and its code. This was where I learnt what a class/struct/whatever they are call in basic was.

--
:(){ :|:& };:
Re:W00T! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-24 01:48 · Score: 0

congratulations on your gargantuan achievement

we are all humbled and applaud your cunning and ingenuity

Killing Innovation!!! by mnmn · 2006-03-21 10:53 · Score: 3, Funny

So Microsoft has stagnated so much, some people there are killing innovation now!

I wonder how much more innovation Microsoft plans to kill this way in the future? I hope they kill Windows 2000 innovation to benefit WINE or ReactOS.

To the uninitiated: Microsoft has repeatedly called opensourcing killing innovation.

--
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky

Shared source by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 10:55 · Score: 1, Informative

The code is under Microsoft's Shared Source license, which has been accurately described as "just a fancy name for an NDA". You can read the source code. You cannot do anything with it.

The code is being distributed for the purpose of serving as sample code for XBox 360 developers. For that purpose, it is great, and a smart move on Microsoft's part. For any other purpose, the source code may as well not exist.

Is the source code readable... by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-03-21 11:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Has anyone looked at the source code? Is it readable (i.e., you can understand how all the separate files fit together)? I look at some of the source code released by id Software, I can't figure how it works. Obviously, I need a README file that details how to put the source code together.

Re:Is the source code readable... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 11:51 · Score: 0

I look at some of the source code released by id Software, I can't figure how it works. Obviously, I need a README file that details how to put the source code together.

if you can't figure this out you have no business looking at the source
Re:Is the source code readable... by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-03-21 12:10 · Score: 1

Are you an expert at reading source code that spans multiple files without documentation? I'm not talking about "Hello World" in a main loop in one file.
Re:Is the source code readable... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 12:38 · Score: 0

Mu.

Other than that, I hope to god you are not a software developer.
Re:Is the source code readable... by jericho4.0 · 2006-03-21 14:58 · Score: 1

You have a valid point, and every right to look at the source code.
The source of a commercial software product is vastly different than the programs we write at home or in school. Assuming you know some C, find main() first, and go from there. The easiest way to navigate it is to import the code tree into an IDE. Grep is also very useful. You're going to run into constructs and paradigms you haven't seen before, and these can be hard to figure out, but eventually things start falling into place.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Re:Is the source code readable... by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-03-21 16:51 · Score: 1

I'm actually a software developer in training. :P
Re:Is the source code readable... by petermgreen · 2006-03-22 00:51 · Score: 1

i've seen the duke3D source and its pretty horrible too. Game engine programmers tend to be programmers who think about performance first and only expect thier code to be read by highly competent coders.

you've got to start from the main method and try and find your way from there to the mainloop, from there stuff should start falling into place.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register

Forget MechWarrier, what about the kernel... by jonwil · 2006-03-21 11:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

Microsoft has released the "Windows Research Kernel".
From what I can tell, it is a release of a large part of the windows kernel sources (some parts are released as source, some parts like the kernel debugger, plug & play manager and power manager are released as library files) for use by academics to teach operating systems classes.

Whats notable is that the licence for this allows creation of derived works. The only things it seems to have is a clause requiring copyright to be not misattributed (i.e. you have to keep the microsoft copyright on it), a "no commercial use" clause and a "if you make changes you have to send them to MS" clause. It aint GPL but hey, it IS a BIG change from what microsoft normally does with their code.

I dont know more details than this and a google for it finds very little information (from MS or otherwise)

Re:Forget MechWarrier, what about the kernel... by mrchaotica · 2006-03-21 15:47 · Score: 1

Sounds like a great way to keep people from working on Free Software, because once you've looked at the code there will always be the risk that you'll subconsiously write the same (or substantially similar) code in some other project in the future.

No thanks; I'll pass.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Forget MechWarrier, what about the kernel... by drachenstern · 2006-03-22 02:50 · Score: 1

Okay, so you hire somebody else to read the code and write the specs.

Note, I also refuse to stoop so low as to re-mention C0__@q on this thread.

--
2^3 * 31 * 647
Re:Forget MechWarrier, what about the kernel... by mwvdlee · 2006-03-22 02:59 · Score: 1

Does their shared source license include a clause which automatically rips me of my copyright for any code I personally add to their kernel?

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?

Microsoft file download policy by LiquidCoooled · 2006-03-21 11:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why do they insist on putting none executable data and documentation inside .exe files?

During my dealings with Microsoft over the years I've seen this very often, their self extractor might work everywhere, but its not a nice feature.

I prefer just the data.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper

Re:Microsoft file download policy by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 11:11 · Score: 0

I agree that it's annoying, but Microsoft does it for security reasons. As a matter of policy, they put digital signatures on pretty much every download, especially if it can be executed (whether directly or compiled and then executed). They can put a digital signature on an executable and it's easy for users to verify these on Windows. Zip files are a bit trickier.
Re:Microsoft file download policy by Hyram+Graff · 2006-03-21 11:16 · Score: 1

Why do they insist on putting none executable data and documentation inside .exe files?

Probably they want to save on bandwidth. Of course using BitTorrent would likely help more than compressing the files.

--
0*0
00*
***
Re:Microsoft file download policy by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 11:31 · Score: 0

In what way would it save bandwidth?
Re:Microsoft file download policy by Xtravar · 2006-03-21 14:02 · Score: 1

Making it executable typically adds to the size... what world are you from?

They usually use a self-extracting zip executable, so the question is, why make it a self-extracting zip executable when Windows has had built in zip support for awhile now?

--
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Re:Microsoft file download policy by LiquidCoooled · 2006-03-24 03:06 · Score: 1

Thank you Mr AC.
Your comment is most likely closest to the truth.
An exe file extractor allows a EULA to be inserted and accepted before obtaining the documents or files.
If they just placed it on the webpage, then anyone could download the resultant data possibly without accepting the eula or restrictions.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper

It's only paranoia if you think they've organized. by khasim · 2006-03-21 11:07 · Score: 1

You're not paranoid if you know you have enemies.
You're only paranoid if you know they've organized against you.

I have no problem believing that Microsoft would pursue legal actions against anyone releasing any code that they could trace back to any of their "Shared Source" releases.

With closed source it is more difficult for the Open Source coder/organization to show that you infringed because ... they don't have the code. It's closed.

But there have been instances where the FSF has threatened legal action because some company has not complied with GPL'd code it used in a product.

So, no, not paranoid for not trusting Microsoft.

And not paranoid for believing that the FSF will insist you comply with the GPL if your closed source product uses GPL'd code.

Sequal Time? by Umbral+Blot · 2006-03-21 11:21 · Score: 2

I loved mech commander. Is there any chance someone might build on this source to create a sequal, or is the liscense to restrictive? Actually even if it was GPL there might not be much hope, because the open source community has a tendancy to create only small games sucessfully, porbably due at least in part to not enough artists/level designers. Sigh

--

Philosophy.

Re:Sequal Time? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-22 05:35 · Score: 0

I loved mech commander. Is there any chance someone might build on this source to create a sequal

I think that, with this source, it is highly likely that one could create a sequel to mech commander.

It doesn't work everywhere... by temojen · 2006-03-21 11:27 · Score: 1

On my G4 iBook, for instance, it fails.

Re:It doesn't work everywhere... by wolrahnaes · 2006-03-21 17:58 · Score: 1

A Microsoft document, needlessly tossed in a Microsoft format, not working on a non-Microsoft platform? I'm shocked!

I'm sure there was a completely valid reason to wrap this document in a Windows executable.

--
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.

oh! what an easy solution!! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 11:46 · Score: 0

you stupid nerds never really get the point

Quick! Combine them! by JarinArenos · 2006-03-21 12:08 · Score: 2, Funny

Can't you just see it now? You control a squad of giant cyborg gorillas, hurling yellow, crescent-shaped plasma grenades at enemy facilities!

Yeah but does it have the content too? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-21 12:17 · Score: 0

I mean, can I download this and then compile/play it?

It's probably missing the content right? All the graphics, models, and such.

Ah well, looks kinda cool anyway. Is this an old game?

Re:Yeah but does it have the content too? by 77Punker · 2006-03-21 12:32 · Score: 1

It's about 5 years old, I think. It's really a very good game. If you're into the sort of thing, you could always download the ISO and burn it. It works just fine and doesn't need a CD key. Friend of an acquaintance of mine told me so, anyway.
Re:Yeah but does it have the content too? by JediLow · 2006-03-21 15:36 · Score: 1

You can also buy it in the budget software bins for under $10.
Re:Yeah but does it have the content too? by legality · 2006-03-23 16:39 · Score: 0

And support the good guys!

but what is it? by bjpirt · 2006-03-21 12:41 · Score: 1

sad perhaps, but I'd never heard of MechCommander. I found some more info here.

But is it any good?

Re:but what is it? by MMaestro · 2006-03-21 15:21 · Score: 3, Informative

Just think of it as an EXTREMELY tactical RTS game (think Ground Control, if you've played it). You get no bases, but you get off the screen support fire (such as artillery and air strikes). Theres no resource gathering, but other than scripted events theres no reinforcements during missions. Since you often times (read: always) go up against superior forces, TACTICS are extremely important (aiming for the weaker, rear armor, using flame weapons against energy and thus prone to overheating enemies, aiming for the legs to decrease mobility and then just bypass/pick off from the distance, etc etc).
Even the forementioned artillery and air strikes took thinking to use. Artillery was fairly inaccurate and air strikes could be shot down if you tried simply trying to air strike an enemy target objective to death. You could get vehicles but they weren't customizable so that made things even harder to plan. You got aircraft but those were pitifully armored compared to the Mechs.
And to top it all off, the Mechs themselves had weight, heat and power limitations. You COULD give a Light Mech one of the biggest weapons in the game, but then it'd be so heavy it could be equiped with anything else. You COULD strip a Mech of its heatsinks in exchange for more weapons, but then it'd overheat in a matters of seconds in combat. You COULD arm a Mech with tons of lasers but then it'd only have enough energy for one volley before overheating and shutting down.
Oh and don't confuse this with MechWarrior (a game where YOU were the pilot.) YOU don't have direct control of the units, the AI pilot statistics played a major role. And I bolded pilots because they COULD be killed, which of course would spelled disaster if you suddenly found yourself on the last mission with no one but rookies to pilot your Mechs.
Re:but what is it? by Neoprofin · 2006-03-21 18:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

A few minor corrections, the only air units you can control are recon helecoptors brought in in the same manor as airstrikes and artillery fire. The airstrikes can't be shot down. The heat factor only determines how many weapons you can equip, big awesome guns produce a lot of heat so you can either have a couple really devasting weapons, a devastating weapon and some smaller firepower to balance things out, or a lot of smaller weapons but regardless there's no way to push the mechs into overheating.
Re:but what is it? by neelm · 2006-03-22 01:48 · Score: 1

MC and MC2 are two of my favorite games... you already have a detailed reply, so I won't repost the same info. I am biased in that I've always loved the Mechwarrior games back even when we had Battlemasters and Locusts (now Atlas and Ravens) on my tandy 1000ex. The story is engaging if linear, and the missions are well designed. MC and MC2 are two of the three games I've ever played though more than once. The third being starcraft.

Obli. Star Wars quote: by SeaFox · 2006-03-21 12:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Admiral Ackbar: "It's a trap!"

EULA text by jarom · 2006-03-21 12:54 · Score: 5, Informative

Shared Source Limited Permissive License for use of MechCommander® 2 This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software. 1. Definitions The terms "reproduce," "reproduction" and "distribution" have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law. "You" means the licensee of the software. "Licensed patents" means any Microsoft patent claims which read directly on the software as distributed by Microsoft under this license. 2. Grant of Rights (A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, Microsoft grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce the software, prepare derivative works of the software and distribute the software or any derivative works that you create. (B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, Microsoft grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under licensed patents to make, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale, and/or otherwise dispose of the software or derivative works of the software. 3. Conditions and Limitations (A) Limitation on Commercial Distribution- Notwithstanding the rights granted in section 2(A) above, you are not granted any rights to commercially distribute any artwork from the software ("Art Assets") in any derivative work or otherwise. Microsoft grants you a limited, non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to use, reproduce and distribute the Art Assets on a non-commercial basis only. (B) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you any rights to use Microsoft's name, logo, or trademarks. (C) If you begin patent litigation against Microsoft over patents that you think may apply to the software (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit), your license to the software ends automatically. (D) If you distribute copies of the software or derivative works, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software. (E) If you distribute the software or derivative works in source code form you may do so only under this license (i.e., you must include a complete copy of this license with your distribution), and if you distribute the software or derivative works in compiled or object code form you may only do so under a license that complies with this license. (F) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it. Microsoft gives no express warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, Microsoft excludes the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.

--
This signature is far too complex to have been created by chance.

Re:EULA text by B1ackcat · 2006-03-22 03:12 · Score: 1

Am I reading this right? If I create all new art assets I can take this code and sell a new game. If I use the existing art assets I can make a new game and give it away.
Re:EULA text by Svartalf · 2006-03-22 03:25 · Score: 1

I think you are. But, you can't call it MechCommander2 or anything with MechCommander in it's name- that'd be trademark infringement and that'd get you in trouble as they explicitly didn't give you that grant of rights on the game.

But then, I'm not a lawyer.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

Debug it? by Yoik · 2006-03-21 13:04 · Score: 0, Troll

I suspect they just couldn't debug the thing, and want us to do that for them free so they can publish a new version.

I've had that problem -- a version that kept crashing in soak with three critical releases dependent on that base. It took 18 months to identify an unchecked semaphore.

Their new release is great if you like the name Bubba.

My favs by blueZ3 · 2006-03-21 16:21 · Score: 1

Are the ones where the author clearly hasn't thought through the implications of their sentence structure. As in:
(From the article on the V2 Rocket): "It was the progenitor of the rocket race that developed during the Cold War, and ultimately put men on the moon and probes that have left our solar system."

Leaving aside whether the V2 was the progenitor of the space race or merely other rockets, parse that sentence and you wind up wondering how the V2 helped put men on the probes that have left our solar system. Indeed, you might wonder who these intrepid explorers were, who were so brave as to travel outside our solar system and so selfless as to remain nameless and unmentioned by history.

Wiki's always good for a chuckle, if nothing else.

--
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com

Obli. Army of Darkness quote: by barbazoo · 2006-03-21 19:45 · Score: 1

Ash: "It's a trick. Get an axe."

Great... by WWWWolf · 2006-03-21 21:22 · Score: 1

Curses and woe upon me for being a Battletech fan who jumped to Linux. And, of course, they released just the 'mech game I don't have. How about MechWarrior 3 instead? Or the original MechCommander? (MW4 is too much to ask, obviously?) And less silly license, please?

I guess I have to go back to regularly scheduled MegaMek...

Re:Great... by Saeul · 2006-03-22 11:07 · Score: 1

The original MechCommander is a FASA/Hasbro owned source base. MechWarrior3 was created by Zipper so it's also FASA/Hasbro. I suspect the reason neither of those have been/will be released is that Hasbro has to be asked since they were created during Microprose days.

I want a Linux port by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-22 02:07 · Score: 0

Now that it is Shared Source, i would love to see a port for Linux and Mac OS X on sourceforge.

not shocking, agreed, because they have a purpose by objwiz · 2006-03-22 03:33 · Score: 1

The reason microsoft released this code is to preview XNA and to get people familar with the technology.

XNA is still in "preview" aka beta.

So, it seems to me, by release source code that requires the use of XNA they are furthering their agenda of promoting their XNA technology.

Question by clragon · 2006-03-22 15:11 · Score: 1

Im not familiar with how source codes work... maybe someone could explain to me?
if I download this 1 gig file, what will it contain? Does it contain the game, or the engine that the game used?

Re:Question by gameboyhippo · 2006-03-24 10:18 · Score: 1

Basically the source is the recipie to make the program. In this case, it contains the recipie to make MechCommander 2. You basically feed this code into what is called a compiler. This then reads the source and makes the game. So you won't have the game right away, but you can make the game with this.

GameOS and network code missing by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-24 05:41 · Score: 0

This is not the complete source release. Rather, this is little more than an advertisement for Microsoft's XNA tools.

Re:not shocking, agreed, because they have a purpo by Hast · 2006-04-01 02:26 · Score: 1

I just tried downloading it and installing.

It won't install unless you have the XNA thing on your computer. In fact even if you select to install the source on a non-C drive it will install 2GB of data on C anyways. I had to move a lot of data around in order to get it to even begin to install.

Then I get a cryptic error that it fails to create a DLL file. (MechCommander2Viewer.dll or something like that.) Turns out that if you don't have all the tools you're not welcome to install the program.

More info on how to resolve that on MSDN.

I found that you could begin the install, wait until it throws an error and then copy the source files in the background.

It is made with VS2005 and you can't open the files with anything less. I may be possible to use the Visual C++ Express 2005 (free) compiler to build it though. I may bring the source to work where I actually have VS2005 to take a look at it.

Hopefully someone will tire of this crap and put a de-stupified version of the source out there.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Releases MechCommander 2 Source Code

115 comments