Urban Terror Code Stolen

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Tuesday August 20, 2013 @01:23AM from the et-tu-b1nary-th1ef? dept.

New submitter herbalt writes "The code of the free FPS game Urban Terror (a standalone game based on a Quake 3 mod), has been stolen. The development team, Frozen Sand, at first stated their Git Repository had been hacked, but later issued an announcement stating the perpetrator of the leak was a member of the development team. Frozen Sand also states they have found chat logs indicating there had been 'a plot to get B1naryTh1ef to steal the code so they could sell Urban Terror under a different name on Steam.'"

32 of 264 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well what do you know.... by metrix007 · 2013-08-20 01:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

I had thought it was open source all this time. Huh.

--
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
1. Re:Well what do you know.... by RobertLTux · 2013-08-20 01:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  the CODE for the game could be open source but the ASSETS could not be. Plus its very skanky to jack somebodies code and then sell (for profit) the same game and not credit the original authors.
  
  --
  Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
2. Re:Well what do you know.... by kthreadd · 2013-08-20 01:30 · Score: 2
  
  Sounds like a good reason to change the assets to something they can ship under a free software license.
3. Re:Well what do you know.... by TWiTfan · 2013-08-20 01:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This all sounds a lot like a publicity stunt, to garner attention for the game, to me.
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
4. Re:Well what do you know.... by kthreadd · 2013-08-20 01:44 · Score: 2
  
  It's not for me, I think it's they that will be better of by doing it.
5. Re:Well what do you know.... by operagost · 2013-08-20 01:45 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, that was literate. Any attempt to match wits with such an individual would be foolhardy.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
6. Re:Well what do you know.... by rwise2112 · 2013-08-20 01:48 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  even weirder is that B1naryTh1ef would be stealing the source code.
  Yeah, that's clearly a job for S0urceTh1ef!
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
7. Re:Well what do you know.... by Captain+Sarcastic · 2013-08-20 01:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Well, that was literate. Any attempt to match wits with such an individual would be foolhardy.
  "Clearly, he has a dizzying intellect."
  
  --
  Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
8. Re:Well what do you know.... by GoatCheez · 2013-08-20 02:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I have to agree. Stealing the source to sell the game on Steam? In what world does anyone think that they could get away with that? Even major corporations aren't that stupid. It's literally the dumbest idea I've ever heard. When a thief steals something that isn't money, they have to sell it "underground" or just keep it for their own personal treasure. They don't sell it in an auction or through an ad in the paper because it would be obvious they stole it and the stolen goods would be returned, and the thief would gain nothing. How would the thief in this case think that they would never get caught? Change the color of some textures? Fucking asinine.
9. Re:Well what do you know.... by kthreadd · 2013-08-20 02:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And what if they don't want to open source their assets?
  They don't have to. No one is forcing them to do that.
  
  Your "desire" to see them "succeed" sounds eerily similar to blackmail: "That's some nice source code there, you should probably just make it open source, it'd be a real shame if something were to happen to it."
  If you cannot fundamentally respect their rights to license their work as they see fit - even if you don't agree with their choices - then you have exactly zero standing to complain when somebody else disregards your wishes as to how source code YOU wrote will be released and licensed. If you don't agree with someone's choice to not open source their assets, you do not automatically gain the right to take a copy. Don't like their license? Do without, or write your own open source alternative.
  I cannot wait to see the day when thugs who feel they have the right to take anything they want at any time they please are shunned out of any civilized company - as they should be.
  I think it's better for them and for all other software developers to produce free software. I don't understand how you can think that's blackmail, it's not like I'm in a position to make them do anything.
10. Re:Well what do you know.... by malkavian · 2013-08-20 02:13 · Score: 2
  
  Yes you can.
  "Pirating" something on the personal scale would be to take a copy of the program for your use without permission.
  Taking the source to sell elsewhere is commercial piracy, which is rightfully pilloried everywhere (I don't think I've seen many, if any, posts here defending commercial pirates; most of the replies I've read have flat out called for a lynch mob. They're in the same social category as spammers).
  What you're effectively saying in your post is "You can't commit theft while with the same breath defend copyright infringement". Which, being completely separate things, you can do without the slightest hint of hypocrisy.
11. Re:Well what do you know.... by Americano · 2013-08-20 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  Culture and knowledge are human rights. You're free to develop your own culture and knowledge, and license the use of the culture and knowledge you develop:
  Some people will choose to license their written culture and knowledge very permissively, and share freely - think "public domain."
  Some people will choose to attach some conditions to their culture and knowledge that are intended to encourage sharing - think "FOSS licenses"
  Some people will choose to set terms and conditions that greatly restrict sharing of the work - think "traditional copyrights, all rights reserved, pay me lots for a single copy of this that you can't redistribute."
  What do all 3 of these schemes have in common? They're all based on the underlying principle that a creator is entitled to control the distribution and sharing of his or her work.
  That you *disagree* with the choices some people make about how to share their works does not entitle you to a free copy whenever you want it. If you disagree with the licensing of someone else's work, you have 2 options if you wish to remain ethical:
  1) Contact the owner of the work you wish to license, and negotiate new terms with them;
  2) DO WITHOUT, and work to create your own alternative.
  If you violate others' copyrights based on the expedient principle of "but I want it! the pony! buy me the pony, daddy!" then you can expect your own copyrights to be infringed upon too, and you will have absolutely no standing to ask for redress when you've destroyed the protections copyrights afford you.
12. Re:Well what do you know.... by AlreadyStarted · 2013-08-20 04:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Trying to sell something that can be got for free is unlikely to be highly profitable.
  Bottled Water.
13. Re:Well what do you know.... by Immerman · 2013-08-20 04:32 · Score: 2
  
  >If you give me your TV you don't have to worry about me (or anyone else) stealing it?!
  Irrelevant, a TV is a physical object and thus obeys different laws.
  If I have a recording of myself singing my own composition, and give you a copy, then we both have a copy, and you have no incentive to steal mine.
  The essence of open source is that I give my work away freely. I may put limits on what you are legally allowed to do with it, but actually getting the thing is something I encourage and do not charge for in any way. You can't very well steal something that is being given to you freely.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
14. Re:Well what do you know.... by Khyber · 2013-08-20 04:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "Stealing the source to sell the game on Steam? In what world does anyone think that they could get away with that? Even major corporations aren't that stupid. It's literally the dumbest idea I've ever heard."
  Never heard of Zynga, I see.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
15. Re:Well what do you know.... by drkim · 2013-08-20 08:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Trying to sell something that can be got for free is unlikely to be highly profitable.
  Tanning Salons?
Poor choice of name by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-20 01:30 · Score: 5, Funny

If you call yourself "B1naryTh1ef", and then steal the source, that just indicates a general sloppiness of character. Sheesh.
1. Re:Poor choice of name by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-20 01:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  That's why he chose that name. Nobody would expect B1naryTh1ef of planning to steal source code.
2. Re:Poor choice of name by CanHasDIY · 2013-08-20 02:34 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That's why he chose that name. Nobody would expect B1naryTh1ef of planning to steal source code.
  In that case, maybe he should have called himself TheSpan1sh1nqu1s1t1on...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Stolen? Steam? by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-08-20 01:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

MPAA officially changed the definition of "stolen."
U sure it wasn't NSA? by c0lo · 2013-08-20 01:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

I mean, a game with such a name...

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Stolen or copied by Nukenbar · 2013-08-20 01:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Until someone comes up with a single word that means "copied against the will of the code's owner", people will use the word stolen. Get over it.
Re:Stolen? Steam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-20 01:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's wrong to prevent anyone from copy code. It's unethical. Instead you should share the code with anyone, preferably under an FSF approved free software license.
No, it's not "wrong" or unethical to prevent anyone from copying code. Free software licenses require copyrights. Asserting that the owner of source code has no right to control copying of their work via copyright carries with it the assertion that the terms of ALL software licenses - even those 'approved by the FSF' - may be safely disregarded at will.
If you really want to go down that road, then you have no basis to complain when a company takes your GPLv3 code and does whatever they want with it, and contributes nothing back to the community. After all - if you would assert your right to take a copy and do whatever you want with it, they can do the same thing: and they have a MUCH bigger legal team.
Re:Stolen or copied by Russ1642 · 2013-08-20 01:44 · Score: 4, Funny

Copyrightinfringement. There. No spaces, like German. Is that alright with you?
what am i missing? by Gravis+Zero · 2013-08-20 01:49 · Score: 2, Informative

quick google of the name and i found a github repo that's been up for years.

The officially supported ioquake3 engine by the Frozen Sand Development Team for the game Urban Terror 4.x
so what's the deal?

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:what am i missing? by herbalt · 2013-08-20 02:17 · Score: 2
  
  That's the source for the ioquake3 engine, which Urban Terror uses and which was released under a GPL licence by ID Software. The actual game is released in a separate package (and they've been getting some hate for that, eg on the ioquake message boards)
2. Re:what am i missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-08-20 02:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's just the open source Q3 engine though.
  UT is a closed source mod to the engine developed seperately (under the Q3 SDK licence)
  From http://www.urbanterror.info/support/196-misc/#1.1
  "Urban Terror uses the Quake 3 SDK license. This means the game code (the .qvm's in zpak000.pk3) are closed source."
  "Urban Terror's close sourced .qvm's (quake virtual machine) are interprated by the open source engine"
  So basically there are three bits: engine, mod and assets. The engine can be the open source Q3 (but could be the closed source version, and doesn't really care). The magic bits of the mod are closed source, and presumably the bits that have been "stolen".
  (no expert, just reading the FAQ's)
Re:Whoa. /keanu by herbalt · 2013-08-20 01:51 · Score: 2

If you haven't played it since the Q3 mod days, there's a bunch of new features and a rather lively competition community. The game is currently in version 4.2 with new game modes (e.g. a trickjump mode), animations and weapons, and most notably a cheat detection system which players have been awaiting for ever since Punkbuster was no longer supported. From what I read in the forums, the anti-cheat system is a good reason to be worried about the code leak because it will again give leeway to developers of wallhacks and whatnot, when the the dev team had just started getting a grip on the cheating issues.
Re: Stolen or copied by ScentCone · 2013-08-20 02:37 · Score: 2

Gee, it's almost like sometimes people use the same word in different contexts or something. Like, "jerk" can be both a noun and a verb. And as a noun, it can be used to describe an action, or to describe someone who pretends they don't understand what pirating (of intellectual property) is. The word has been used for centuries to describe the ripping off of another's creative work.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Oh no by Hadlock · 2013-08-20 03:05 · Score: 2

Seems to work just fine for Activision. They've been using it as the base source for the Call of Duty games up to and including Modern Warfare 3/4 and all the various spin-offs. It's highly modified, but at the end of the day Q3A continues to be the gold standard in FPS.

--
moox. for a new generation.
Re:Stolen or copied by Minwee · 2013-08-20 04:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

In German it would be "infringementrightcopy", plus about a dozen extra syllables on the end to show that you really mean it.
The real story by b1naryth1ef · 2013-08-20 06:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mildly hilarious to see this here. In fact, I did not steal the source code, nor leak it. I've already made an official statement (which you can read at the bottom of http://playurt.com/index.php?mod=news&action=view&id=7 that post). If you're really stupid enough to listen to anything Frozen Sand posts on their home page (with the only evidence being "screenshots", and the post being locked to responses) you don't have much going for you. I'm not going to go into the legal implications of what Frozen Sand has done (because I'm still processing documentation with my lawyer) but to say the least, they're in a wee bit of trouble. This basically boils down to FS trying to harassing and defame me after I quit.