Multi Theft Auto - San Andreas Goes Open Source

dan writes " Multi Theft Auto is a third-party modification for Rockstar's hit title Grand Theft Auto San Andreas — and it has become open-source after over four years of closed source development. As a (somewhat) regular player of MTA since the early days of GTAIII, this hit me by surprise, somewhat." (The news is on the project's front page, from which dan extracts more details, below.) dan continues: "Some of the interesting parts of the post: 'Today we are marking a new milestone in the history of Multi Theft Auto. After over 11000 revisions since 2004, contributions by over 16 world-wide developers, 1554 files and well over 550.000 lines of mostly C/C++ code, we have made the decision to re-launch Multi Theft Auto as an open-source project.

By open sourcing our project, we are encouraging anyone who is willing to participate in this project, to participate. For that reason, we are not 'just' offering our source code: we have also opened our bug tracker and will be offering public access to our nightly build system that will be compiling a build every day (and has been long used for testing purposes). This way, any developer will be able to run the latest revisions, file bugs or submit patches.

This is particularly exciting given that the released source is based upon the MTA Blue core, which in theory can be applied to any single player game. The source will no doubt be useful and provide foundations for future projects and the progression of the mod itself.'"

Comments

Anonymity

[QuantumG]

I've seen a bunch of "open source" game projects where the developers use pseudonyms to contribute. A few of these projects don't even have any contact information to get in touch with the developers. This basically makes their licensing pointless. Anyone can slap the GPL or a BSD-alike license on a bit of code, but it doesn't mean anything unless someone is willing to stand up and claim copyright on the code.. and that means a real human with a legal name. Throwing some code, that you value, out into the world without your name on it isn't philanthropy, it's just stupidity. If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it. They then can write up a DCMA takedown notice and the actual authors have no way to prove that they are the legitimate copyright owners.

Re:Anonymity

[FooAtWFU]

If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it.

And pray that you don't get a serious legal smackdown laid on you if it ever did happen to go to court. There are ways to demonstrate authorship and link pseudonyms to real people when you get down to it; they're not perfect, but are you willing to risk the chance they work?

Re:Anonymity

[QuantumG]

Why the hell would who care? If your question is, why would people who worked for years and years on a project be a little sad if they had their project taken down and the only way they could put it back up was to put a legal fight.. I think maybe you're capable of figuring that out for yourself. If you mean, why would a court care that they were using pseudonyms and not their real names? Because that's the thing about pseudonyms, anyone can claim to be the owner of them and the court can't tell who is lying.

 

Re:Anonymity

[lysergic.acid]

what's to stop someone from downloading all of the files and revisions, removing the author's names and replacing their own, and putting up their own MTA site claiming that they were the original authors?

i don't see how typing your name in a text file is going to provide any kind of added protection against someone trying to take credit for your work.

whether they use a pseudonym or not, the original MTA authors still have several important things on their side:

• a public history of publishing the code on the web (i.e. they have users, fans, and site visitors as their witness)
• they probably have unpublished files like raw artwork, PSD files, e-mails, and other local records of their development
• they own the domain name, web hosting account, Google Code account, e-mail address, and other accounts used in the project's development.
• they have the truth on their side.

book authors publish under pseudonyms, or noms de plume, so why can't programmers?

Re:Anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, maybe it's time I was more open about this then. I wrote the code.

Re:Anonymity

[ZorbaTHut]

If someone wants to shut down one of these projects, all they have to do is claim that they wrote it.

Proof of identity besides, how exactly would this work? All major open-source licenses (including the GPL) are irrevocable for the code they were distributed with. They can claim they wrote it all they want - they can't force anyone to take it off their sites.

If someone wanted to shut down the project, they'd have to:

* Claim it was theirs
* Claim that they never intended for it to be distributed
* Explain how it is that this group, which has been distributing it for a long, long time, managed to be the sole source of distributed binaries for months (years?) without the original authors ever caring
* Explain how this group got ahold of the sourcecode in the first place

There's enough laugh-test issues in there to make any such attempt essentially impossible.

Basically, put it this way. If these people, the actual developers, want to de-GPL it in the future . . . they can't. Cat's out of the bag, ain't going back in. If they can't do it, what makes you think an impostor could?

Re:Anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

They opensourced code that is not even theirs, I have my sources, trust me there is actually code in there that they got from rockstar before the hot cofee fiasco when they even supported them, i doubt they ever did permission to release that.

And they also refuse to credit some of ex-developers.

Basically they could get easily sued into oblivion.
 

Re:Anonymity

[Kjella]

Proof of identity besides, how exactly would this work? All major open-source licenses (including the GPL) are irrevocable for the code they were distributed with. They can claim they wrote it all they want - they can't force anyone to take it off their sites.

If a license wasn't applied by the copyright holder then the license and any sublicenses are null and void. Stolen goods don't become legitimate if you sell them on eBay, nor can you "launder" code using a license.

If someone wanted to shut down the project, they'd have to:

* Claim it was theirs

TRUE.

* Claim that they never intended for it to be distributed

FALSE

* Explain how it is that this group, which has been distributing it for a long, long time, managed to be the sole source of distributed binaries for months (years?) without the original authors ever caring

FALSE

* Explain how this group got ahold of the sourcecode in the first place

FALSE

To take your most obvious error first, copyrights do not have to be defended. I could sue ten or fifty years from now without any need to explain myself. The other two might be arguments in a court of law, but here's the basic sequence of events.

1. Your ISP recieves a DMCA takedown, all it requires is a claim to ownership not any proof or reasonable case. They will take it off the site.
2. You must file a DMCA counter notification for their return.
3. The DMCA troll must file a lawsuit to continue (or not, since it's takedown abuse).
4. During the discovery/trial there's no evidence and you win (hopefully).

But wait, what happens here at step 2? It means you must claim:

"I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that the complaint of copyright violation is based on mistaken information, misidentification of the material in question, or deliberate misreading of the law." plus give your full contact details for a potential lawsuit.

Would you sign that on behalf of some pseudonymous code that some d00d contributed to your project? Do you know who he is, what code access he's had and whether these allegations are true or not? I sure as hell wouldn't do that, it'd be dangerous as hell because I don't know the facts here. You can try getting the pseudonym to file the counter-notice but he might not be reachable or doesn't want to step forward. Then it's game over, your code is down and it's not coming back up.

Basically, put it this way. If these people, the actual developers, want to de-GPL it in the future . . . they can't. Cat's out of the bag, ain't going back in. If they can't do it, what makes you think an impostor could?

You alledge the cat was never legally let out of the bag, and that everyone's handling it or its kittens are dealing in stolen property.

Re:Anonymity

[dintech]

Let me clarify, he means that someone could use a pseudonym to poison the project with copyrighted source. Obviously, as you say, the person doing this isn't concerned about the project. You're forgetting that it's the others using their real names on something they care about who will suffer because of it. OK, so you could identify who submitted the dodgy code and remove all of their contributions but it might not be sufficient by that point.

Now hiring!

[narcberry]

Looking for motivated developers to work on an exciting video game project.

Must be willing to work for free.

Re:Now hiring!

[Hal_Porter]

Looking for motivated developers to work on an exciting video game project.

Must be willing to work for free.

Looking for motivated philanthropists to work on an exciting underprivileged human life improvement project.

Must be willing to work for free.

Oh come on! GTA's attitude is best summed up by the advice "If you kill that hooker, you can get your money back." Comparing it to charity work is a bit silly.

Re:Now hiring!

[donaldm]

Oh come on! GTA's attitude is best summed up by the advice "If you kill that hooker, you can get your money back." Comparing it to charity work is a bit silly.

Killing as many people as you can in GTA is quite acceptable however we cannot pick up a Hooker and bang her in a car, killing is ok but not the other thing, Think of the children! :-)

Re:too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but you're wrong.
See how I've provided evidence for all my points?

Re:This is news???

[pushing-robot]

So I assume you also avoid any open source software that runs on Windows or OS X?

Only Cowards are Anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the Google Code site for the project and see some of the committed files in the repo, you'll notice REAL names with REAL email addresses, and thus your point is moot... and I shall forever be a coward.

Oh, you don't need cheats.

[StreetStealth]

I've heard fantastic, mind-bending things about Multi Theft Auto.

Apparently, enthusiast game devs grafting on a real-time multiplayer component to a single-player game to which they don't have the source results in some, shall we say, interesting sync issues. My favorite story is where one guy suddenly gets replaced with a taxi on another guy's client. He still sees himself as a character, but the other guy sees him as a taxi just "walking" around.

"Get in me!" is of course the appropriate response, and upon their union the two have a strange and jittery ride down the street, until they get to the train station. They get on the train, which the taxi guy sees as a bouncy and jittery train ride, but the other guy sees as a taxi intersecting the train, grinding endlessly against the tunnel.

Finally, something breaks, and they're no longer constrained to the map's clipping, rocketing around the city, perhaps bi- or quad-locating, and it's time to reset the server.

Re:Oh, you don't need cheats.

[spandex_panda]

thats awesome. I want to bi- and quad-locate someone

Re:Oh, you don't need cheats.

[X0563511]

What he doesn't tell you is that the taxi-seeing player had picked up an LSD powerup...

Summary Lacking

[ovanklot]

FTA:

"Multi Theft Auto (MTA) is an open-source software project that adds a full multi-player network play functionality to several of Rockstar North's Grand Theft Auto game titles, in which this network play element is not originally found."

Ah, now I get it.

Time for some open source

[sleeponthemic]

and hot coffee.

Re:This is news???

[Jamie's Nightmare]

No, the GP is a troll who hates the idea of closed source software. In order to make use of this project, the GP would have to defile himself by coming into contact with such software. According to the Church of Stallman, that is a sin.

Re:...but they do help.

[coresnake]

Actually the MTA servers are all full of cheaters who use weapons hacks in nonweapon areas etc. anyway so I wouldnt worry about that.

More than 16 worldwode developers...

[VendettaMF]

"More than 16 worldwide developers"

That'd be 17 worldwide developers then?

Tell me more, more, more

[jonaskoelker]

you can pick up hookers in San Andreas and engage in something that makes the car bounce.

I can't wait to hear. The suspension's killing me.