StarCraft Is Now Free, Nearly 20 Years After Its Release (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Nearly two decades after its 1998 release, StarCraft is now free. Legally! Blizzard has just released the original game -- plus the Brood War expansion -- for free for both PC and Mac. You can find it here. Up until a few weeks ago, getting the game with its expansion would've cost $10-15 bucks. The company says they've also used this opportunity to improve the game's anti-cheat system, add "improved compatibility" with Windows 7, 8.1, and 10, and fix a few long lasting bugs. So why now? The company is about to release a remastered version of the game in just a few months, its graphics/audio overhauled for modern systems. Once that version hits, the original will probably look a bit ancient by comparison -- so they might as well use it to win over a few new fans, right?

Comments

20 years?

[Snotnose]

Seems like yesterday the wife was bitching and moaning about how much time I spent playing that game. I'm getting old, fast.

Re:20 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah? I'd just started high school :P

Re:20 years?

[losfromla]

Have you gotten laid yet?

Re:20 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not yet

Re:20 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

It was popular in 2002 - four years later.
If you're fast, Protoss pwns.

Re:20 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

kekeke zergrush ftw

Re:20 years?

[antdude]

And then she will be doing them again soon. ;)

Re:20 years?

[aliquis]

I never started to play it. That's a game for intelligent people. I played Quake. .. and no.

Re: 20 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marines and Medics win every time.

Re:20 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

You feel old? I remember playing Pong. And I was already older than 20 then.
Good old times...

Re:20 years?

[silentcoder]

Jerking off the succubus picture in the DnD player's guide counts.

Re:20 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

We all are. I hit the big 40 this year *sigh*.

Re:20 years?

[DontBeAMoran]

Seems like yesterday the wife was bitching and moaning about how much time I spent playing that game. I'm getting old, fast.

It seems you're also getting Alzheimer's.

Re: 20 years?

[DontBeAMoran]

Not the right game, but this pro tip is still appropriate.

Re:20 years?

[DontBeAMoran]

So what? Forty means nothing. You're still in the six digits range.

Re:20 years?

[pecosdave]

I found competitors early on and Marine rushed Protus taking out all of their mining units before they had a single anything else. That was fun.

Also I loved going up against tanks. Find a group of tanks together and send a sacrificial peon up as close as you could get it to one of the tanks, then attack at pont blank range. All of the surrounding tanks will attack your peon destroying one of their own in the process and maybe doing damage to others.

Re:20 years?

[aliquis]

Watching American Pie is close enough.

Re:20 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

40 is middle aged. It is the time when people truly grow up and understand life. You'll get it when you get to be this age, junior.

Coolness

[sheph]

I'm jazzed about having something compatible with newer versions of windows. As of Windows 7 I had to write a batch file to kill explorer in order to get it to work.

Re:Coolness

[sheramil]

I'm a little less jazzed to find that it installs Bonjour, without telling you, and it doesn't provide a visible uninstall option unless you do some research and learn that there's a command line uninstall. My system's performance dropped sharply and only recovered once i'd managed to pry Bonjour out of it.

Re:Coolness

[angryargus]

I'm jazzed about having something compatible with newer versions of windows.

I'm bummed that they completely broke it running on XP. I upgraded my existing paid product and it failed to start. Ditto with a clean install. I reinstalled from CD and patched to 1.61 and things are working again.

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a little less jazzed to find that it installs Bonjour, without telling you, and it doesn't provide a visible uninstall option unless you do some research and learn that there's a command line uninstall. My system's performance dropped sharply and only recovered once i'd managed to pry Bonjour out of it.

Ugh.

Anyone have a link to the real installer? The PC version of "StarCraft-Setup.exe" is just some 3-megabyte stub installer.

If we're going to go retro for a 20-year-old game, the full goddamn installer needs to be available. Not something that just downloads the real installer and is still dependent on the fucking cloud.

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

Two things:

1. The PC version doesn't install Bonjour. Maybe the Mac version does, but the PC version doesn't (yes I know they should have used "Windows" instead of "PC", but that ship has sailed just like the "hacking" vs "cracking" linguistic saga)

2. Let the installer download and unpack the game files and archive the installation directory. The game itself is not dependent on any remote server and seems to be completely portable, so as long as you have the archive available, you don't need to worry. Installer stubs are becoming more and more common these days - getting riled up about such things is not worth your blood pressure.

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

You're bummed that they broke support for an OS that has been EOL'd for 3 years?

I mean, I loved XP, but that ship has sailed man.

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everything sails.

Re:Coolness

[thegarbz]

My system's performance dropped sharply

From the Bonjour service?!? Just because it's Starcraft II doesn't mean you should be running it on a DX4-100.

Re: Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

Bonjour is built into Mac OS X so installing it on Mac has no meaning. If the installer doesn't put it onto Windows and Mac already has it, then Bonjour seems to be a red herring here.

Starcraft was always inferior to Total Annihilation IMO. I never understood why everyone loved StarCraft so much.

Re: Coolness

[drinkypoo]

Starcraft was always inferior to Total Annihilation IMO. I never understood why everyone loved StarCraft so much.

Because the different races are actually different, probably. The two sides in TA were almost identical to begin with and then they made them all but identical with the addons.

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm bummed that there are still people running Windows XP.

Re: Coolness

[Talderas]

Because StarCraft was more accessible. It was fun to watch others play and you could played matches in a shorter amount of time, the latter of which is immensely important.

It's the same reasons why Supreme Commander failed to make headway into that space and the attempts to move Supreme Commander 2 into that space caused it to fail miserably.

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

(hides his Win98SE ThinkPad 760XL)

Re: Coolness

[Cederic]

It was the three hour grudge matches against the AI that became wars of raw attrition that really made TA shine though.

When you can't advance on the enemy because of the wreckage from previous fights blocking the way, you know you've had a battle.

Re:Coolness

[Cederic]

Well, worth keeping around to play the original..

Re: Coolness

[SirMasterboy]

Starcraft was always inferior to Total Annihilation IMO. I never understood why everyone loved StarCraft so much.

I would have to say big parts are because of the great single player campaign and also the custom gametype maps online (like tower defense and stuff like that).

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah i noticed that too, stopping and disabling the bonjour service doesn't help because starcraft updates the service configuration and restarts it for you.

don't forget the blizzard update agent that also gets spawned.

i'll stick to the original disks at this point ... if i feel like playing it again.

Re:Coolness

[SCVonSteroids]

Yes, there you go, blame it all on the fucking French.

Re: Coolness

[Phusion]

Not to mention the story line and cut scenes were a lot cooler in Starcraft, plus everyone was playing Warcraft 2 and the upgraded engine w/ SC brought people in droves. We DID have a lot of fun w/ TA at LAN parties though.. but SC always felt more polished and familiar-- and yes, more accessible.

Re:Coolness

[Gr8Apes]

Not everything sails.

True, XP sunk.

Re:Coolness

[Gr8Apes]

That's what VMs are for.

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it does. I patched my existing installation of Brood War (which, I believe, just gets the installer and uses that anyway to reinstall) and it shows up in the process list as mDNSResponder.exe. Its description in services.msc is

Enables hardware devices and software services to automatically configure themselves on the network and advertise their presence, so that users can discover and use those services without any unnecessary manual setup or administration.

What I'd like to know is what command line options you can use to get rid of this or what purpose it has in the functioning of the game, because disabling it and stopping it doesn't make a difference.

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how to uninstall it, but here's what I know about it on Windows:

You can't disable it/stop it from running. The game will switch it to manual every time. You can't rename the folder to prevent it from running, it will spawn a new folder every time. You can dump the folder and create a 0-byte file called Bonjour Service and that will prevent it from creating a folder. It will set the service to manual every time but it won't be able to run because the executable won't exist.

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Let the installer download and unpack the game files and archive the installation directory. The game itself is not dependent on any remote server and seems to be completely portable, so as long as you have the archive available, you don't need to worry. Installer stubs are becoming more and more common these days - getting riled up about such things is not worth your blood pressure.

Y'know, I still hate installer stubs, but thanks, and I stand corrected. (Even for me, that's an acceptable compromise: Install once via stub, and then it's the end user's responsibility to maintain backups of their own portable installation.)

Re: Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed, flexibility and harassment where better implemented in SC.

Re:Coolness

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, maybe people might want to play a game that's nearly 20 years old on their "retro" gaming XP box? I mean, the game is 20 years old...

Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but they should release it with source code included under GPL.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? They are still planning on using portions of the code for the updated version, plus they are under no obligation to do so. They've already given away the game for free. Asking for the source now, just after they've released it for free, is pushing an agenda too far. Calm your crusade for a few hours, at least. Sheesh.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[mark-t]

The GPL does not change copyright law.... you always need permission from the copyright holder of a work to copy it, and the GPL does not change that. The GPL outlines the prerequisites a person is expected to adhere to in order to gain such permission. If you are the sole copyright holder, you can GPL your own work and still make closed-source derivative works of it, since you cannot infringe upon your own copyright. If you are not the only copyright holder, then of course, you cannot do this, because to copy the work you still need permission from all of the copyright holders, and without contacting each one individually and obtaining specific permission to copy the work under different terms, the terms of the GPL would apply by default.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Sarten-X]

The GPL enforces freedom, while MIT/BSD licenses do not.

I've often used the term "careless licenses" to describe MIT and BSD, because the authors of software under such licenses don't care how it's used. With the GPL, in contrast, they are requiring that you keep derivatives open-source as well.

That is the main freedom the GPL is concerned about: the freedom to view, modify, and use the source code for the software you run. Not only does the GPL require the author to release source code, but it requires redistributors to do the same, ensuring that that very specific freedom endures. On the other hand, MIT/BSD licenses are little more than a disclaimer of warranty, allowing unscrupulous enterprises to rebuild the software and sell it as a commercial product, effectively taking credit for the original author's work - which the SCOTUS has found to be of significant economic value.

In short, it's a matter of perspective. The GPL protects the users and original author by adding restrictions, while the MIT/BSD licenses protect nothing while requiring nothing. To an author, it is a matter of preference what they care about most.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[mark-t]

It wouldn't be a mistake to release a work under the GPL if the author still did not want others to make derivative works without permission. Given that they didn't release the source code at all, that is likely to be the case..

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

I always find this philosophy very strange. Some people even seem to feel that the GPL is somehow more restrictive than closed-source, despite the fact that the entire point of the GPL is to ensure that code that is released as Free Software can't be appropriated by another firm (except the original copyright holder) into a proprietary product. This protects GPLed code from ever falling into the trap of being worse than what's available in closed-source-only code, and prevents anyone else from creating a "community" and "premium" model except the original author - which again protects both the code and the author.

GPLing the code would be smart, and it would ensure that any third party would keep the code free. Whether the freedom of the code or the freedom of other users is more important is up for debate, but the FSF has a sincere position that proprietary code restricts user freedom - so from their worldview, MIT/BSD/X11 style licenses are ultimately less free.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[james_gnz]

... the GPL isn't about freedom. ...
... Freedom isn't about telling other people exactly what they can and can't do. That's tyranny. ...
... Just look at how long the text of the GPL is compared to much freer licenses like the BSD or MIT licenses. ...

Allowing people freedom requires preventing people from restricting others' freedom. Countries have laws, and they are often long. We can't accurately compare the freedom of countries by comparing how long their laws are.

Besides, much of the GPL (aside from the requirement to disclose source) is designed to counter the requirements in copyright laws (which are generally very long, and full of restrictions and limitations).

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the stereotypical feminist line of thinking of that strong independent women are too weak to stand-up for themselves. GPL is a "feel good" idea with no substance.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[hackel]

Seriously, just do the world a favour and kill yourself.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Wishing evil upon someone. I am sorry for you.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You first, motherfucker.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[AK Marc]

The GPL's negative effect on freedom

Nope. The government stepping in and putting you in jail for lynching undesireables is a "negative effect on freedom" but is still a net gain in freedom. "Forcing" freedom is still more freedom than anarchy. In practice, anarchy quickly becomes a warlord system. So GPL, forcing those who use it to remain open isn't a negative effect on freedom.

Unless you think that putting a mass murderer in prison is a negative effect on freedom.

Re:Release it with source code unde GPL

[TheRealMindChild]

I seem to remember someone talking about the code being absolutely abysmal

From a quick google search: http://kotaku.com/5942128/star...

Re:Release it with source code unde GPL

[OrangeTide]

GPL would normally only cover the source. But right now the whole thing is freeware. I remember when Quake 1 when GPL, but we were still not allowed to include assets outside of the shareware release. It took a long time for decent total conversions to come out, and we realized that just having the source to a game didn't really mean as much as we had assumed.

Re:Release it with source code unde GPL

[djinn6]

Quake 1 isn't nearly as popular as StarCraft though. I remember playing a Gundam TC that worked with the Broodwar expansion, so even if they don't release assets, there'd be a few versions of alternative assets ready to go on day 1.

On an unrelated note, the source code will probably be a good educational tool for people trying to study video game programming.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep acting like you don't have the freedom to simply not use GPL code if you find the restrictions troublesome. It's most peculiar.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I borrow that huge crowbar?

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Ace17]

The fact that the GPL "requires" people to do so many things means that it's taking away freedom.

Whose freedom? Users, distributors, maintainers, vendors, service providers? You can't guarantee 100% freedom to each of them simultaneously. They are incompatible. For example, allowing distributors to do everything they want (e.g not providing source code) will prevent users to do everything they want (e.g modifying the program). So, it makes no sense simply to state that a license "reduces freedom in general". So, let's please stop saying imprecisely wrong things like "GPL code doesn't give me freedom because it puts restrictions on the way I can redistribute it". The GPL has always been about protecting the freedoms of the end-users at all cost, not the the vendors' freedoms.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

And you have the freedom to simply not software that is released without source.
What is your point?

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people even seem to feel that the GPL is somehow more restrictive than closed-source

In some ways it is. Remember that a lot of closed-source software is still released as freeware and have on occasion been disassembled and modified.
If I have the executable of GPL code I can't just hand it over to a friend without first figuring out where the source is. GPL requires me to be able to at least point the recipient of the binary to where he/she can get the source.
Say that I have made a small modification that fits my use case and I want to make it available. I can't just put the binary somewhere. I have to either pack up the source and make sure it is distributed with the binary or I have to be prepared to dig out the source and mail it whenever someone asks.

It might seem like odd cases but it happens.

GPL works best if there is a clear hierarchy for software distribution with centralized control and someone willing to invest the time/money needed to host the source.
Personally I never bought into the whole "GPL keeps the source open" argument. Even if someone takes code under BSD license, makes modifications and distributes the binary, the source that they started out on is still available for everyone to use.
I don't see any benefit to GPL compared to the BSD license and the "freedom" GPL claims it provides is restrictions, not freedom.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I do. My point was that nobody's infringing upon anyone's freedom by releasing software under a licence with restrictions on copying. No tyranny going on in either case.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[silentcoder]

Sometimes, to secure the freedom of the many, you have to somewhat reduce the freedom of the few. The GPL secures the freedom of users (the many), to do so, it must somewhat reduce the freedom of programmers (the few).

This is not tyranny, this is freedom - when you increase the favour of the few at the expense of the many, that is tyranny (and why libertarianism in all it's forms is tyranical).

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[silentcoder]

Yet it is the most popular open-source license by far, and has given us the infrastructure for the entire internet, powered some of the biggest supercomputers ever built which are helping to solve the mysteries of the universe and so on and so forth.

The BSD systems, even after release, and despite being arguably better in some technical measures never achieved such an impact on the world, their biggest achievement was having MacOSX based on FreeBSD. Sure the GPL precluded what apple did there - and that was why apple chose FreeBSD - but the BSD Licenses failed to build an open internet for the masses or an OS that runs most of it's servers (and a growing number of desktops and virtually all of it's mobile devices).

The GPL succeeded where the BSD licenses failed exactly because it understood that to make society, overall, more free you must REDUCE the freedom of the few in favour of the freedom of the many. Because when you do not, the few will use their freedom to remove freedom from the many - they will BECOME tyrants.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[silentcoder]

Sean Spicer seems to think we can - remember he told us Ryandontcare was better because it was shorter.

And it WAS better, if you're a billionaire, for everybody else it was basically getting raped and being told they charge extra if you want lube.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[TuringTest]

Remember that a lot of closed-source software is still released as freeware and have on occasion been disassembled and modified.

It is illegal to dissasemble and modify freeware, so GPL software is not worse there.

If I have the executable of GPL code I can't just hand it over to a friend without first figuring out where the source is

Yes you can. If you don't modify it, you can simply copy the offer that was handed to you as your user right. (GPLv3, section 6c). Please don't spread misinformation. (Section 6c is limited to a noncommercial context, but that is the use case you were arguing, and the only possible one with shareware/freeware).

If you did modify it, well, that's already something that you couldn't have done legally with freeware.

Say that I have made a small modification that fits my use case and I want to make it available. I can't just put the binary somewhere

You can't do that with freeware either, so how is it any better?

I don't see any benefit to GPL compared to the BSD license and the "freedom" GPL claims it provides is restrictions, not freedom.

Myself, I like to see it with respect to what is protected by the license in terms of freedom.

- "Permissive" licenses (BSD-like) protect a single snapshot of the code, as it exists the day it is released. That version can be used freely by anyone, but the possibility to impose additional restrictions means that you won't necessarily be free to use the versions derived from that snapshot.

- "Protective" licenses (i.e. Copyleft) protect the whole project in the long term, whether it is the snapshot released under the license or any later modification of it. You are guaranteed access to any version that someone releases of that code, under the same terms that give you the freedom to use code.

The idea of the constraints in Copyleft is that the constrained environment should have more total possible actions in the aggregate, even if every individual player has one less action available on paper. If you don't acknowledge this possibility, you are not getting the point why the constraint was added to this kind of license.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

There's quite a bit of great proprietary software. I prefer it over the FOSS alternatives, which suck. VMware is one such product. Sucks to be you, loser.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Luthair]

I'm curious by what measure you consider GPL to be the most popular license. In my experience GPL is rare outside of the Linux community, MIT seems to be the most common on the web and Apache for everything else.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[silentcoder]

It's been studied repeatedly - there are simply far more open source projects under the GPL-family of licenses than any other license. That implies it is chosen by more free/open source developers than any other license - which makes it the most popular.

You could argue that something like the apache license is used on projects more people use than many GPL projects - but it's used on far fewer projects, so it's definitely less popular with developers. There are specific niches where the GPL lacks popularity - usually areas where FOSS and small-scale proprietory software frequently co-exist and have a good mutually beneficial relationship - indy games for example, where there is generally strong pressure on FOSS indy-devs to use the MIT license so that their assets can be used by proprietory indy-games devs - and the return for that is that they get to use a lot of the art assets from those proprietory devs under things like the C.C. licenses. In those environments a GPL project tends to struggle to attract volunteers since most of the people who may volunteer to work on your free game are probably working on a game of their own which may not be free and they would want to be able to reuse some of your work in return for contributing to your project.

But those are small niches - and tend to be notable in that the companies doing proprietory work are tiny (often one-man) shops which can negotate with the FOSS projects on equal terms - there isn't much fear among the FOSS guys that their code would be used in some major proprietory project with a huge marketing budget that actually displaces them and gives the users ONLY the non-free version. The Apple/FreeBSD rip-off is unlikely there.
Indeed, the ONLY time I've EVER done a FOSS project under any licence other than the GPL was a games project- due to the nature of the indy+foss game community and how the two communities overlap and interact.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[mark-t]

As has been already described above, the freedom that the GPL offers is that the amount of freedom that anyone has is never reduced... you suggest that you can make a non-free version without reducing the freeom because you allege that the free version is available somewhere... but what if you either already own or buy out the infrastructure that was being used to distribute it? You didn't own the original copyright, but if you control the communication infrastructure by which the author provided it to you, then you have the means to prevent further distribution of the original, and while that may be unethical, it certainly isn't illegal. Nothing in the BSD license stops you from preventing other people from accessing the content where you got it from, so it leaves a loophole with which companies or people wiht sufficient resources can still reduce the amount of freedom that people have with the work without violating any copyright law, while the GPL ensures that reducing any amount of freedom of the work results in a copyright violation. While you might still be able to suffocate a GPL work in the same way, you would not legally be able to make any copies of the work or create derivative works without infringing on copyright, so there can be no net benefit for anyone to do so.

Copyright says that unless fair use is deterrmined to apply (and derivative works are *never* fair use), you can't make a copy of a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. The GPL does not change that, it simply grants such permission to anyone who agrees to its terms. Yes, the GPL limits what you can do, but in fact copyright has already done that anyways, so your limitations are actually no greater under the GPL than they would be on a non-free work. The GPL only ensures that you pass along the same freedoms that you were given to those that you distribute it to. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

>The GPL's negative effect on freedom(...)
>Forcing somebody to do something isn't freedom. It's tyranny.

Ok, let me in to your home and take everything i want from you!

What?! you do not allow me to do that? that is a tyranny! you are taking away my freedom!!
So if it is YOUR home, you decide the rules for it, right?

So It is someone CODE, they decide that the rule is GPL... you can use it just fine, just keep the code OPEN, as the rule requires. if you do not like it, do not use it, you are free to decide

If you decide to open your home to everyone, later do not complain that someone stole your things and are getting rich using then

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Raenex]

It's been studied repeatedly

So where's your cites to any of these studies?

there are simply far more open source projects under the GPL-family of licenses than any other license. That implies it is chosen by more free/open source developers than any other license - which makes it the most popular.

Oh really?

1 MIT 44.69%
2 Other 15.68%
3 GPLv2 12.96%
4 Apache 11.19%
5 GPLv3 8.88%
6 BSD 3-clause 4.53%
7 Unlicense 1.87%
8 BSD 2-clause 1.70%
9 LGPLv3 1.30%
10 AGPLv3 1.05%

Re:Release it with source code unde GPL

[OrangeTide]

There are lots of books on video game programming. And GP Gems has an article on how Starcraft-like RTSs work.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[silentcoder]

http://redmonk.com/sogrady/201...

The very first link if you google it, is to the most comprehensive study that exists - and the most up to date data. And it clearly shows that the GPL2 is still by far the most popular license with GPL3 in second place - combined they cover a full 37% of all projects by themselves -the remaining 63% divided among ALL OTHER licenses - including the other GNU copyleft licences like the AGPL.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Raenex]

The very first link if you google it,

The first link I found when I googled it was the one I posted. It also contradicts your study.

is to the most comprehensive study that exists

By what metric? And I've never heard of "Black Duck", but everybody knows about GitHub.

and the most up to date data

The GitHub study was from March 2015, the Black Duck study from November 2014.

And it clearly shows that the GPL2 is still by far the most popular license with GPL3 in second place

But not in the GitHub study, and more importantly, there's a point of agreement that you brazenly try to spin in your favor:

combined they cover a full 37% of all projects by themselves -the remaining 63% divided among ALL OTHER licenses - including the other GNU copyleft licences like the AGPL

Yeah, that's your spin. The real story is that, collectively, the permissive licenses (BSD, Apache, and MIT) outnumber the GPL variants, and that's been the trend. From your own link:

"If we group both versions (2 and 3) of the GPL together, the GPL is in use within 37% of the Black Duck surveyed projects. The three primary permissive license choices (Apache/BSD/MIT), on the other hand, collectively are employed by 42%."

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

GitHub is mostly Macfags. Of course they're not likely to use the GPL much - if they agreed with that philosophy they'd be using Linux.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[silentcoder]

Dude... stop advertising your lack of experience. 90% or more of active FOSS projects were founded before github ever existed - mostly decades before. Github represents such a tiny sample size its ridiculous to extrapolate from it. All the latesr sexy projects are there - but thats useless for this question. And we who have experience in FOSS have known black duck for decades

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Raenex]

Dude... stop advertising your lack of experience.

And stop advertising your disregard for facts.

90% or more of active FOSS projects were founded before github ever existed - mostly decades before.

Oh look, another unsubstantiated claim from you. New projects are being created all the time. And even many old projects have moved to GitHub.

Github represents such a tiny sample size its ridiculous to extrapolate from it.

I didn't find the number of projects for either study, so this is another unsubstantiated claim on your part. However, I can substantiate a simple Google metric:

Search results for "github" "software": About 50,200,000 results

Search results for "black duck" "software": About 286,000 results

All the latesr sexy projects are there - but thats useless for this question.

Maybe you should stop living in the past and assuming nothing has changed significantly since then.

And we who have experience in FOSS have known black duck for decades

And more importantly, maybe you should look at the results from your own Black Duck link. Even that one agrees that, collectively, permissive licenses are winning out over GPL, and that's the trend.

But hey, maybe you think IE is still the number one browser, smart phones are a luxury that can be ignored as a niche product, and gosh darn it, Black Duck and GPL rule the roost of the open source world, because, decades!

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that trend is in there - but it also says this was merely a normalisation of the excessive degree of popularity of teh GPL in the past, it never suggests other licenses are likely to overtake it - and it seems almost unthinkable that they would have.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course - even if other licenses DID surpass the GPL in popularity now or in the future it would say NOTHING about my actual claim - that the GPL built the infrastructure for the open internet, because that was built when it was UNDOUBTEDLY the most popular license.

Your counter-argument is like denying the importance of steam engines to the industrial revolution on the basis that they were largely replaced by cars in the 20th century.

Oh and black duck is not a source hosting site - your comparative search is false, but even so their sample size was 6 times larger than github -and INCLUDES github.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Raenex]

it would say NOTHING about my actual claim

Tired of embarrassing yourself, so posting as Anonymous Coward now?

that the GPL built the infrastructure for the open internet

Oh, you mean like Apache, OpenSSL, and the BSD network stack?

And the claim that I was responding to was this: "It's been studied repeatedly - there are simply far more open source projects under the GPL-family of licenses than any other license. That implies it is chosen by more free/open source developers than any other license - which makes it the most popular."

And even your own study, the one that shows GPL in the best light, proved you wrong.

Oh and black duck is not a source hosting site - your comparative search is false, but even so their sample size was 6 times larger than github -and INCLUDES github.

You again make unsubstantiated claims. I did not find the number of projects in either study, so where do you get this "6 times" number from? Regardless, your claim was proven wrong when looking at either study.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[mrchaotica]

GPL isn't about freedom. It's about control

Bullshit. The GPL is about freedom; the difference is that it treats freedom as a positive right while things like the BSD license treat it as a negative right.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

you always need permission from the copyright holder of a work to copy it

False. Permission to copy works - without the need for any permission from the copyright holder - is granted to the public under many circumstances, it's called "fair use". Further, Acts of Congress are not the highest law in the land - the Bill of Rights is the highest law in the land (superseding even the original Constitution) - and the Bill of Rights is open-ended as a result of the 9th and 10th Amendments, which means copying works can potentially be done beyond the scope of "fair use", if it is done as an exercise of rights "retained by" or "reserved to" the people.

You got yourself in trouble by careless use of the word "always" - had you said "typically" or "generally" you would have been better off.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[mark-t]

Touche. Yes, my bad for overgeneralizing.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[silentcoder]

>Oh, you mean like Apache, OpenSSL, and the BSD network stack?
You just listed pretty much the TOTATILITY of the internet infrastructure that's NOT GPL - the thousands of other projects that form part of that infrastructure is a different story - not to mention the OS that nearly all of them ran on, the OS and development tools they were created and built and compiled with, the support libraries they used, the shell they ran in... these were almost all GPL.

>Regardless, your claim was proven wrong when looking at either study.
No, the blackduck study clearly shows that, although GPL popularity has declined somewhat in recent years it was still the most popular license by a massive margin.
And your counter-argument is that more new projects were founded (with all or nearly all not using the GPL) in the last 7 years than in the preceding 24 years since the GPL was first published ! For most of that time the ONLY projects that did NOT use it were basically those created at Berkeley (which didn't even get released until 10 years later) and those from MIT. The most influential of the latter being X - which the vast majority of people did not receive as free software exactly because of it's permissive license - it didn't become available to most people as an open-source project until the original release of XFree86 in 1992.

And the point is - you accuse me of living in the past, while ignoring that we were discussing HISTORY - you know, the past. The present is not particularly relevant, and even in the present the statement is still true- just slightly less so. Now it's entirely possible it will not be true in future, this would be tragic, but it's possible -and the trends suggests the possibility is quite strong. But that has nothing to do with today.
Github based on some browsing is the most popular hosting site today - but there is no indication of how many projects are active (of my 6 projects there only one is active - so by your reasoning we can divide it by six) - the other ones have fewer projects but some like Savannah have a significantly higher percentage of active projects. Bitbucket doesn't even reveal numbers - but their high popularity with companies using the Atlassian stack suggests it will be quite high. There's the whole stack over at FreeDesktop.org.

Github may be a major player - but they are not the only player in town, and they remain a recent addition to the stable - just 7 years old, when we're discussing a period dating back to 1983.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[silentcoder]

And, again, blackduck is not a hosting site - you can't just compare google hits as if that tells you something - all that tells you is how many pages link to them. Blackduck is a software company specialising in analytical research software - and it so happens that one of the ways they prove their code is running comparative studies of license popularity - the most comprehensive studies of their kind there is. The data from github is PART of the input data they use, but their data even includes all those little projects still living on an FTP server somewhere that ever even got moved to a codehosting site... you know, like the fucking kernel.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Raenex]

You just listed pretty much the TOTATILITY of the internet infrastructure that's NOT GPL

There's more, but what I listed was a significant portion of Internet infrastructure, in contradiction to your ridiculous claim that GPL "has given us the infrastructure for the entire internet". And for somebody that claims experience, you also don't seem to understand that the Internet was around and flourishing before there was even a GPL operating system, or that the rise of Linux was partially an accident of history due to the legal tangles of BSD with AT&T.

No, the blackduck study clearly shows that, although GPL popularity has declined somewhat in recent years it was still the most popular license by a massive margin.

You made a claim about the "GPL-family of licenses". When you compare the permissive family (BSD, MIT, and Apache) with the GPL family, the permissive licenses come out on top. Developers are choosing permissive over GPL, even in your preferred study. If I go with the GitHub study GPL isn't even the most popular license, period.

And the point is - you accuse me of living in the past, while ignoring that we were discussing HISTORY - you know, the past.

No, we are discussing the present day breakdown of license choice. Your claim was about the present, which includes old history and recent history.

(of my 6 projects there only one is active - so by your reasoning we can divide it by six)

What the fuck? Don't assign your sloppy and muddled reasoning to me. If you have concrete numbers, like I've been asking for all along, then provide them. You don't.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

80% of people are below average with the rest in a power curve. Being "popular" is not a good metric for something being good.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[Luthair]

Many open source projects have either moved to Github or have mirrors there (by the authors or by random people)

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[zentigger]

Considering TCP/IP was actually a BSD development, it's pretty fair to say the " infrastructure for the entire internet" is actually a result of BSD, not the GPL.

Since this basically destroy the false premise of your argument, the rest of your argument is pretty much bat guano.

The BSD license succeeded exactly where the GPL failed. It makes knowledge available freely and unrestricted. Because if this, it is much easier for a commercial entity to adopt. Once adopted, it is often advantages to help develop major architectural changes upstream, benefiting the entire community.

Re: Release it with source code unde GPL

[silentcoder]

Sorry, no.
There are lots of software that make up the infrastructure of the internet, not one little protocol implementation.

And you're claim is bullshit too. It's true that the particular tcp/ip stack which is in most OS's today is based on the one that was in the BSD kernel - but that was not the origin of it. Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn invented TCP/IP in 1972. At that stage Unix was a freshly released AT&T product. Work on BSD unixes wouldn't even start until the 1980s.
So it's bullshit to claim TCP/IP is *the* infrastructure of the internet (it's just one small part of a large bunch of things that form part of that) - it's even bigger bullshit to claim it was a BSD invention - it was not.
And the version of the code that does the vast majority of the work on the internet - is, in fact, the GPLd version inside the Linux kernel - which has been so extensively hacked on over the past more than 25 years as to be hardly recognisable anyway.

For OSX?

[guruevi]

I have the original SC for Mac and it's an OS9 PPC program and doesn't run on OS X (anymore, they did away with Classic mode after 10.4).

I'd love to see them make an emulator or compilation for Intel OS X.

Re:For OSX?

[ckatko]

If you want an emulator, why not just emulate the windows version? What's the difference?

Re:For OSX?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wineskin and done...

Re:For OSX?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have the 1.05 discs of both Original and Brood War. Both discs say Windows 95/98/NT and Power Macintosh on them. I wasn't aware there were Mac-only discs. Could you check yours, as you may be able to use Windows or Wine?

Blizzard updated the Mac version to use the Carbon library for PowerPC, so it can run on OS X 10.3 through 10.6. Get a copy of this new installer (and latest patches) here: https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/Patching-Classic-Games

While I have been running the Brood War expansion pack on OS X 10.5 PowerPC for years, I have not been able to connect to Battle.net in a while. I receive a message stating that Blizzard can't verify my application version. YMMV

Re:For OSX?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been updated for Intel.

Since you didn't try the Mac download link, Blizzard provides a "StarCraft Launcher" app which then downloads a 1.6 GB version of Starcraft for Intel macOS, at least for me. I image the Launcher checks your OS and processor and chooses an Intel or PPC version.

Re:For OSX?

[aliquis]

If you want an emulator, why not just emulate the windows version? What's the difference?

It's so much more creative on Mac.

Better color profiles? ;D

Re:For OSX?

[Yaztromo]

I'd love to see them make an emulator or compilation for Intel OS X.

$ file /Applications/Games/StarCraft/StarCraft.app/Contents/MacOS/StarCraft
/Applications/Games/StarCraft/StarCraft.app/Contents/MacOS/StarCraft: Mach-O executable i386

Seems you got your wish.

Yaz

Re:For OSX?

[locopuyo]

Yes, it is for both PC and MAC. https://starcraft.com/en-us/ar... There is a download link there.

Re:For OSX?

[phantomfive]

Wine doesn't work well on all laptops, whereas the old classic mode still worked fine.

Re:For OSX?

[painandgreed]

I have the original SC for Mac and it's an OS9 PPC program and doesn't run on OS X (anymore, they did away with Classic mode after 10.4).

10.6 I believe. I keep my first Intel Mac around running that just so I can play, er, run old PowerPC software (Like SMACX).

PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard, please, please, please, release the source code under a truly free open source license (like the BSD or MIT licenses; not the GPL)! Or at least release whatever source code isn't encumbered by onerous proprietary licensing problems. Even a partial release of the source code would be such a fantastic thing for the gaming community. Anything that's missing could probably be reimplemented, assuming it's even still needed.

StarCraft isn't just any game. It's one of the most historically important PC games ever to have been created. It's up there with Doom, Wolfenstein 3D, and SimCity. Releasing its source code under the BSD or MIT licenses would be one of the greatest contributions that could be made to not only the worldwide gaming community, but also to computing historians now and for generations to come.

Please, release the source code under a good open source license! Please!

Re: PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

The same scum that trod on bnetd aren't going to release their precious IP any time soon.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the dumbest comment I've seen today. Nobody ever took C&C seriously as a competitive game, and Warcraft 3 was less popular than its own mods. Starcraft has been played at a professional level for the entire 20 year run.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Warcraft (1994) predated Command and Conquer (1995). Command and Conquer was much more a reskin of Dune than Warcraft is a reskin of C&C.

It's also kind of silly to pretend any of these games is as historically important as Starcraft. People are still playing and watching competitive Starcraft.

If you're going to be a contrarian fanboy pedant, at least get your facts right, or try to make some kind of point.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are still thousands of people playing SC1 online at any given time, 20 years after its release. EA already shut down the servers for most of the Command and Conquer games years ago.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant Warcraft.. I and II. Warcraft 3 was much later. I recall C&C having a pretty decent following as well.

Re: PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dune was amazing when I was a kid. Really got me into rts. Cheers.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice attempt at trolling, however Warcraft: Orcs and Humans (the first game) came out in '94. C&C 1 came out in '95.

Science.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[chispito]

and Warcraft 3 was less popular than its own mods

I think you mean mod, singular, and DOTA is just a mash up of Warcraft 3's heroes and Tower Defense. But the mod wouldn't have made sense at all without Warcraft 3's hero system (kill npc creeps, level up abilities, and get an utlimate). That is what MOBAs are really based on more than any other single element, and it was a direct contribution by the WC3 design team.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[lucasnate1]

OpenRA managed make C&C competitive, I really recommend that you take a look.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[hackel]

You are such a disgusting human being. GPL will fuck your mother.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems an appropriate time to quote Warcraft 2:
New troll here

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[cheesybagel]

Whatever. Dune II predates it.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Luthair]

DotA is definitely more than a mash-up of Warcraft 3 and Tower Defense, I mean it spawned an entire genre that has dominated gaming for the better part of 10-years.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

"professional".. lol.

click... click. click, click, click... mom, more pepsi! click.. click.

captcha: asinine

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[goose-incarnated]

A bad knockoff of 'Command and Conquer' is historically important?

And C&C was 'just' a knockoff of Dune 2?

Hell 'Warcraft' was a bad knockoff of 'C&C', starcraft was just a bad reskin of warcraft.

IIRC, that's how SC started, but they had to do a whole new engine eventually when they decided to do more than a 'knockoff'. Cloaking, stacking, burrowing, creep, higher ground advantage, floating buildings, add-ons, regeneration, etc could not be done as a warcraft reskin.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Warcraft 3 was less popular than its own mods. Starcraft has been played at a professional level for the entire 20 year run.

Why is it that you don't think Warcraft 3s mods to be calculated into its popularity but Kespas modified binaries of Starcraft should?

Some mods are more equal than others?

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[TuringTest]

release the source code under a truly free open source license (like the BSD or MIT licenses; not the GPL)!

Ok, I'll bite. Why not the GPL? What is there that you'd want to do with the code and the GPL wouldn't allow you?

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

same as all sports... golf.. swing ...plop ... walk swing ... plop walk.... profit?

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[DontBeAMoran]

Some mods are more equal than others?

Yes, but S3M and XM are still superior formats.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Sumus Semper Una]

DotA is definitely more than a mash-up of Warcraft 3 and Tower Defense, I mean it spawned an entire genre that has dominated gaming for the better part of 10-years.

Why do you think its popularity and longevity preclude it from being a combination of derivative ideas?

Games like Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch are also very popular, and TF2 has had a very long life indeed. But their core concepts were still spawned from a Quake mod called Team Fortress that was really just another Capture the Flag clone (of which there were many in those days) with classes. It's just that it was done very well and arrived at the right time to become very popular.

The original version of DotA WAS a Warcraft 3 mod which was based on a Starcraft custom map called Aeon of Strife. And Aeon of Strife was an evolution of the (at the time) very popular Tower Defense sub-genre.

DotA is popular and has continued to evolve, but it's still a derivative work. That doesn't detract from the fact that it's fun to play and continues to innovate. It just means it didn't form in a vacuum.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Give a binary to a friend with no strings attached?

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[chispito]

DotA is definitely more than a mash-up of Warcraft 3 and Tower Defense, I mean it spawned an entire genre that has dominated gaming for the better part of 10-years.

What I mean is that if you had only ever played League of Legends, your first time playing WC3, the first time you trained a hero from the altar, you'd just get why the genre was born out of that game. But yes I agree DOTA is a far better game than WC3/TFT and was a really ingenious distillation of its best parts along with new additions.

Re:PLEASE RELEASE THE SOURCE CODE!

[TuringTest]

You can do that with GPL code. All they need to care about is taken care in the copy of the license bundled with the binary package (that you'd need to pass around with MIT code too).

Run offline?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will this version run without an internet connection or will it require one so it can phone home?

Free still means freedom to some of us

[jdavidb]

I found this headline confusing, because when I started out here on Slashdot many of us used "free" to mean "available under a license that preserves your freedom to view source code, modify, and redistribute for any purpose" rather than merely "gratis."

There doesn't seem to be a license or source code available, so I'm thinking the article just means available with no charge.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Within the open source community the word 'free' has always referred to price first and foremost, and freedom only after that. 'Libre' and 'open' are the words that have a focus on freedom of modification and redistribution. 'Gratis' is the word that has a focus on price, or the lack thereof. If you're going to criticize the submission's use of proper terminology, you should at least have a minimal understanding of what you are talking about, which clearly you do not.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[rockout]

You must be loads of fun at parties.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[EzInKy]

Might depend on the party I suppose. Little "f" free is like someone giving you a free beer, big "F" free is like someone giving you a recipe for beer. The former you can consume just once, the later you can improve on and consume forever.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[Type44Q]

He doesn't get invited to those - i.e. any - sort of parties.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[jdavidb]

Some of us were posting on slashdot before there was an "open source community."

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you being serious?! The open source community was well established by the mid 1980s! It predates Slashdot by decades!

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS, plz go.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[watanuki]

https://opensource.org/history

The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, there are all kind of free recipes for beer and yet most people continue to buy beer and gratefully accept free ones mostly because making it is not free. Perhaps you need a better analogy.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[aliquis]

I found this headline confusing, because when I started out here on Slashdot many of us used "free" to mean "available under a license that preserves your freedom to view source code, modify, and redistribute for any purpose" rather than merely "gratis."
There doesn't seem to be a license or source code available, so I'm thinking the article just means available with no charge.

Non-alcoholic version:
Free as in liberty, not socialism.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the first sentence of what you linked to:

Development based on the sharing and collaborative improvement of software source code has a history essentially as long as software development itself.

All they did in 1998 was give a new name to a long established set of practices, and a long established community. The "open source" practices and community existed for decades before 1998. Just look at the GNU project. It's open source, and goes back to the 1980s. Then there was the BSD work done at Berkeley in the 1970s. Open source existed long before Slashdot did, and long before the OSI was formed.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[Imrik]

The label was created at a strategy session of the community that already existed.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[aliquis]

He doesn't get invited to those - i.e. any - sort of parties.

With a Free licensed party he could just compile his own!

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Party analogy: When a nice girl at the parties ask for his attention, he demands to see the STD test chart, promises to take cake of his own viral infections and requires no condom use during any possible sexual acts, instead of just dancing a while.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anubis IV]

there is

There are

at least 40 definitions for the word free

"free"

in the dictionary,

dictionary.

its

It's

no one elses

else's

fault or problem you

that you

are to

too

fucking stupid to remember more than one

one.

Sorry, why were you saying he was stupid? I was a bit distracted.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

People often ask me what life is like under Russian rule. I usually tell them to ask an American.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[ledow]

Funny.

I was around before you and that "Free" with a capital-F shite was either done in jest or not taken seriously for years.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

All they did in 1998 was give a new name to a long established set of practices, and a long established community.

Given that the original Anonymous post was discussing terminology specifically, the date at which the "open source" label was created is relevant. Amateur troll.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[thegarbz]

I found this headline confusing

Don't worry, we understand Stallman. You'll get used to the common usage of the word eventually.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[drinkypoo]

I found this headline confusing, because when I started out here on Slashdot many of us used "free" to mean "available under a license that preserves your freedom to view source code, modify, and redistribute for any purpose" rather than merely "gratis."

Well, no. Free still means both gratis and libre. When the word appears at the beginning of a sentence like that, it's difficult to tell which meaning is intended, because the opportunity to capitalize it for emphasis vanishes. You don't get to define the word for the world, and it would be stupid if we were to use the word so differently from everyone else. That would isolate us and make us even less relatable.

"Free Software" means what you want free to mean, but only among nerds. "Free" can mean a lot of things. One of them is libre, and you will find very few takers for changing that, because it would be dumb.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[drinkypoo]

The âoeopen sourceâ label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California, shortly after the announcement of the release of the Netscape source code.

No, that is a lie, and you should not repeat it.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[silentcoder]

It's actually a perfectly accurate analogy. Getting the recipe ALLOWS you to make your own beer, it doesn't REQUIRE you to do so.

Re: Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us were playing video games before there was an "open source community".

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Anubis, that was SICK!

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[Anonymous Coward]

Might not want to use capitalization cues from a headline that capitalizes every word NOT (preposition OR article).

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[jdavidb]

I found this headline confusing, because when I started out here on Slashdot many of us used "free" to mean "available under a license that preserves your freedom to view source code, modify, and redistribute for any purpose" rather than merely "gratis."

Well, no. Free still means both gratis and libre. When the word appears at the beginning of a sentence like that, it's difficult to tell which meaning is intended, because the opportunity to capitalize it for emphasis vanishes. You don't get to define the word for the world, and it would be stupid if we were to use the word so differently from everyone else. That would isolate us and make us even less relatable.

"Free Software" means what you want free to mean, but only among nerds. "Free" can mean a lot of things. One of them is libre, and you will find very few takers for changing that, because it would be dumb.

Well, I didn't argue that the word has only one correct definition, and I certainly agree that many of us including myself aren't very relatable, and those of us who use/used "free" to mean "libre" are certainly less so.

Everything I said is a statement of fact: some, but not all of us, back in the day used to use "free software" to mean something specific, and I got confused when I saw this headline because I briefly thought that's what it meant. Times sure have changed here if I'm the only one that's true for, and that gives me a bit of nostalgia for Slashdot back in the day, warts and unrelatable nerds and all.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[drinkypoo]

Nearly two decades after its 1998 release, StarCraft is now free. Legally!

I found this headline confusing, because when I started out here on Slashdot many of us used "free" to mean

"Free Software" means what you want free to mean,

Everything I said is a statement of fact: some, but not all of us, back in the day used to use "free software" to mean something specific,

Your logical fallacy is: moving the goalposts. You were wrong. Admit you were wrong, and move on.

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[jdavidb]

I'm just a really dense unrelatable guy, because I don't get what I said that was wrong. Was I incorrect when I stated that I was at first confused? Was I incorrect when I said a lot of nerds her used to use "free software" to mean something other than "without cost"?

Re:Free still means freedom to some of us

[jdavidb]

I worded my original post very carefully so that I wasn't saying what the word "free" does or does not mean, or should mean, or what other people should think, or anything like that. I'm not sure people are looking at my actual wording - I think they are reading something extra into what I said that isn't there.

LINUUUUUXXXXX!

[Anonymous Coward]

See above.

now for diablo 2

[Anonymous Coward]

and stop suing mod making people

"Free?"

[hackel]

Where's the source code? I guess Blizzard still sucks ass compared to iD and other game companies that actually bothered giving anything back. This is nothing but a pathetic marketing ploy.

Re:"Free?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you even distribute Quake 1, 2 and 3 game data yet? Seems like all you have is a GPL engine and no free game.

Re:"Free?"

[Anonymous Coward]

You can distribute the shareware game data from Quake 1, yes.

Re:"Free?"

[Mashiki]

No, it's because some of the people who worked for Blizzard and wrote the original Starcraft code aren't at Blizzard anymore but still have ownership of those snippits of code. Remember how the industry used to be? Where code sections you wrote would remain under your power, as a part of your employment at the company? That's the reason why. They can't release to source code without permission from those people.

Hell just look at the clusterfuck with things like NOLF or SHOGO: Mobile Armor Division and so on. Nobody has any idea who even owns the source code let alone the IP anymore, but IP laws are such a mess that even in that state they can't release what source code they do have. It's a good argument on the need to reform various laws on IP protection though.

Re:"Free?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the source code? I guess Blizzard still sucks ass compared to iD and other game companies that actually bothered giving anything back. This is nothing but a pathetic marketing ploy.

pathetic marketing ploy? Nonsense, this is a totally awesome marketing ploy. While the graphics are badly dated, the game is still one of the best that I have seen. I played a few games of SC 1 just this year, before the announcement about the free version came out. If I didn't already have 2 legal copies, I would be even more excited about this release.

Re:"Free?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the source code?

Stallman have a tendency of not being entirely truthful.
For example he abuses the word free when he really means open or public.
Open or publicly available source doesn't mean the same thing as free.

In fact GPL is a great example of how source can be made public without making it free.

Re:"Free?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Open or publicly available source doesn't mean the same thing as free.

But it can be mean free. For example, a user can download the source code, go to a website to learn how to compile that code and then ... run it without paying a single dollar. So it's free software ... stuff for which you pay $0.

Re:"Free?"

[ausekilis]

Does distributing the original game even matter when developers can take the source and create something awesome from it?

There are free games built on those engines, like Nexuiz, Reaction, Tremulous, etc... You just need to look.

Re:"Free?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Those took years to materialize. I was one of the first to have a semi-working Quake ported to Linux (ala SVGAlib), I'm quite familiar with what was available and what was not.

Looking back from my own personal experience, I would have preferred to play a working free game than a non-working open source one. At the time, the GPL'd Quake was a novelty that was pretty useless at LAN parties.

Re:"Free?"

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can't distribute the real game.

And there is no shareware version for 2 and 3. and the game data for Q1 shareware doesn't work on Q2 or Q3. (different formats)

Pretty sure the C&C Demo was out before Warcra

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched/played it for over a year at the local Egghead Electronics before Warcraft showed up on store shelves. And I seem to remember it showing up before warcraft on BBSes too.

Certainly FELT like a much better game than Warcraft.

StarCraft isa knockoff Sim City.

[Anonymous Coward]

but instead of Money and Taxrate and Population Density you get Mineral-Gas-Capacity crossed with actors and statistical intermission and Ripoff Music of TYPE O NEGATIVE all rendered in DirectDraw 3 graphics adaptors with first ever full duplex Microphone over IPX team networking.

I prefer Warzone 2100 or Activision BattleZone 3D or Falcon's Eye compared to all these overhyped classic frauds and misprints.

FreeCraft was mixing up multiple genres of RTS as was Generations Quake (orwasit Generations Doom).

Hell, even XEvil was moar impressive than anything shatt out by Blizzard and ID. Fans made better wares but were beaten down.

Re:StarCraft isa knockoff Sim City.

[DontBeAMoran]

Forgot to take your meds this morning?

Re:StarCraft isa knockoff Sim City.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, right? My favorite part about Sim City was zerg rushing the other player.

gg?

[Pioto]

gl, hf

twas only a wish.

[Anonymous Coward]

todo.evil is a whole other thing, like how StarCraft developers dis-obeyed Microsoft orders to not release on NT 4 because it was a serious Operating System.

Re:twas only a wish.

[UnknownSoldier]

> like how StarCraft developers dis-obeyed Microsoft orders to not release on NT 4 because it was a serious Operating System.

You wouldn't happen to have a source for that by chance? Thanks.

Finally, I can play it!

[No Longer an AC]

Seriously I have never even played it. It came out after I had already reached peak gaming in my lifetime.

I'm installing it now and will soon see what all the fuss is about.

I feel like this guy except I'm on a nearly 20 year lag.

I suppose I'll get around to Half Life 2 by the time I start drawing Social Security

Re:Finally, I can play it!

[drinkypoo]

Too little strategy, too much fast clicking. Each race has one or two strategies which actually work and you follow them and whoever is fastest with a mouse wins. But some people seem to need more stress in their lives.

Re:Finally, I can play it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here... but it doesn't run on linux so I guess I won't be playing it :(

Re:Finally, I can play it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Should work with Wine.

Re:Finally, I can play it!

[Baron_Yam]

It's still fun for the first few hours until you discover those problems, though.

Or at least, it was at the time. Perhaps that's nostalgia and it won't actually hold up against today's gaming standards.

On the other hand, if I recall correctly it wasn't an ad-filled, pay-to-play, Internet connection required, DLC-laden product whose primary design consideration was how to squeeze every last cent out of your bank account by careful tuning to human addictive tendencies.

Re:Finally, I can play it!

[Quirkz]

Hope you have fun. I never played online or in matches with people, just went through the single-player campaign, and I enjoyed that thoroughly. I'm just realizing it's been more than a decade since I last played, so now might be a good time to give it another shot.

Re:Finally, I can play it!

[pecosdave]

I'm that guy.

I have to work for a living and I game on Linux. By the time a Linux port comes out and I actually have time to play it....

Yep, I beat Portal for the first time about October of last year.

My first taste of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

[onkelonkel]

Starcraft gave me my first taste of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Every day 8 hours CAD, 10 hours Starcraft. Hurt like a bitch after a few months. I had to give up the Starcraft for about 3 months and mouse left handed at work.

This is great but...

[Gravis Zero]

I'll wait for the Linux port. ;)

Re:This is great but...

[pezezin]

We can wait forever, it seems Blizzard doesn't have any interest in supporting Linux :(

Re: This is great but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is interested in supporting Linux: it's a niche OS that has tried hard and failed hard to make any impact whatsoever in the desktop market. Linux users are losers, and nobody will ever support losers. Get over it.

Re:This is great but...

[Anonymous Coward]

the old disk-based version worked under Wine, i can't attest to this new downloader yet though.

Re: This is great but...

[pezezin]

Yeah, that's why Steam supports Linux, as we all know Valve is a tiny company made of losers...

Not for PC, though

[jandersen]

The PC link is broken - it only leads to a Windows .exe file, so it won't run on my PC. Yeah, alright, I'm trying to be unreasonable here, but it would be nice if at least those who are supposedly in the know (one would hope this includes the editors of /.) when it comes to computers and technology, would stop equating PC (=the hardware platform) with Windows (the OS, for lack of a better word), since there are things out there that definitely are PCs which do not run Windows.

Re:Not for PC, though

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard uses the term PC because everyone knows it means a Windows machine. Windows & PC are interchangeable terms in common parlance. The number of PCs that don't run Windows is incredibly small and Linux has not earned any level of mainstream success such that the term PC could be confused for anything but a Windows machine. Slashdot editors probably used the term PC themselves because on the link to the game in the summary, the options are PC and Mac.

Re:Not for PC, though

[drinkypoo]

The PC link is broken - it only leads to a Windows .exe file, so it won't run on my PC. Yeah, alright, I'm trying to be unreasonable here,

And you succeeded brilliantly. Congratulations?

One might wonder if it will work under Wine. Have you tried?

Re:Not for PC, though

[CanadianRealist]

He did try whining. Does that count?

Re:Not for PC, though

[mtxmorph]

I did. StarCraft used to work well under WINE, so I was hoping to play for nostagia's sake.

It installed just fine, but fails to run with a DLL issue. Hopefully with some investigation, the WINE gods can figure out the cause. :)

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42741

Employees have no copyright over code

[drnb]

No, it's because some of the people who worked for Blizzard and wrote the original Starcraft code aren't at Blizzard anymore but still have ownership of those snippits of code. Remember how the industry used to be? Where code sections you wrote would remain under your power, as a part of your employment at the company?

No. Never. The Starcraft developers were Blizzard employees. Blizzards Inc owns and controls all code. Employees got paychecks in the typical "work for hire" manner that transfers copyright to the company.

The source code is not being released because it is partly still in use. The game engine is the same code in the upcoming 4K display compatible release, which is network/gameplay compatible with this free version. Its only the graphics code that is changing.

Re:Employees have no copyright over code

[Mashiki]

Guess you don't know anybody who's worked for Blizzard huh? That policy changed around the time WC3 was released and they started working on their first MMO. The only thing I miss about my friends working for them is it was great to be a part of the F&F Team.

Re:Employees have no copyright over code

[drnb]

Guess you don't know anybody who's worked for Blizzard huh?

That would be a very very bad guess.

That policy changed around the time WC3 was released and they started working on their first MMO.

No, I'm familiar with things going back to SC1/D1 days. Employees had work for hire contracts. Matter of fact anything game related they wrote belonged to Blizzard even when on their own time and computer; they had to explicitly have exceptions put into an addendum to their contract for personal projects they wanted to continue to support. Problems relicensing code are in 3rd party libraries like movie playback, not in Blizzard written code.

The only thing I miss about my friends working for them is it was great to be a part of the F&F Team.

Also known as "visiting hours" by employees, when friends and family got to visit during "crunch time" and play the game before public beta.

Re:Employees have no copyright over code

[Mashiki]

Then you should already know that RAD offers license and royalty free source releases for the 3rd party game tools prior to 1999. Which is the only licensed 3rd party tool that was used by blizzard at the time for their development.

Re:Employees have no copyright over code

[drnb]

Then you should already know that RAD offers license and royalty free source releases for the 3rd party game tools prior to 1999. Which is the only licensed 3rd party tool that was used by blizzard at the time for their development.

A source license does not allow the licensee to redistribute source code. If differs from a traditional binary license in that you get the source code so you can fix things or change things and redistribute your own binary. A source license is the only sane way to use a 3rd party library.

GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[drnb]

No. You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries. The terms of the GPL require everyone, including the original copyright holder, to provide source to anyone they gave a binary to and grant these people the right to modify and redistribute to their hearts content.

To create a proprietary version the original copyright holder has to dual license. Have two copies of their source code, one under GPL and one under something proprietary compatible. Only binaries built from the non-GPL version of the source code can remain proprietary.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[Cederic]

No. You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries.

Of course you can. It's still your code, you still choose how to distribute it and if you produce proprietary binaries, you don't have to release those under the GPL.

To create a proprietary version the original copyright holder has to dual license. Have two copies of their source code, one under GPL and one under something proprietary compatible. Only binaries built from the non-GPL version of the source code can remain proprietary.

So you agree with me, and with the person to whom you replied, even though this contradicts your earlier statement.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[Anonymous Coward]

If the code is 100% yours, you can have both proprietary and GPL releases.

However, those versions are irrevocably forked once you accept outside code into your GPL product. The only way around this is to convince the outside GPL contributor to consent to inclusion in the proprietary codebase.

There are practical reasons not to dual-license. The GPL version will likely end up freely distributed and improved. If that happens, you are forced to compete against it---typically a challenging endeavor, and not a good position for a company to be in.

Because of this, most software companies do not dual-license even though it is entirely possible to do so.

(AC because of mods elsewhere)

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[drnb]

There is no contradiction. The code exists in two instances one GPL and one not-GPL. The GPL version can never create proprietary binaries, it can never limit the person downstream. The post I replied to seriously misstated the GPL's working and mixed up things from dual licensing. It is only the non-GPL version that can create proprietary binaries. If its not-GPL, its not a derivative of the GPL. The GPL does not allow a derivative to remove the GPL. The non-GPL is an entirely separate work.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[Cederic]

No. A single code base can be shared under GPL and published in binary form under a different licence.

The non-GPL is an entirely separate work.

It can be built from the same code base. The GPL does not prevent this, where the code is owned by the person creating the non-GPL licenced version.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[networkBoy]

where you run into trouble:
create app, version FOO licence under GPL && proprietary licence.
modify app, version BAR, no issue with either licence.
someone puts a patch against BAR in the GPL version out on GitHub (or anywhere else).
BAR + patch is version BAZ.

Unless you get permission from the patch creator you can't pull BAZ back into your proprietary trunk.
You can make BAZ not part of your GPL tree, just to keep the two versions consistent, but then you're letting potentially cool features go unused.

Even worse, it is possible that you independently create BAZ not knowing about the community version, and end up being sued for it. (assuming your source is different enough from the community version you'd likely prevail, but it's still a costly hassle.)

So sure someone can dual licence, but it can really be a PITA, and thus just going MIT licence is so much less headache.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[networkBoy]

and actual use case for dual licence needing to be consistent: (each line is a release step)

FOO - proprietary only sell for $$
BAR - proprietary only sell for $$; FOO converts to GPL
BAZ patch shows up, creator ignores?
BIN - proprietary only sell for $$; BAR converts to GPL

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[Cederic]

Ignoring submitted patches leaves you in no worse a position than choosing not to GPL in the first place, so there's still a community benefit.

You can also invite the submitter to hand over copyright (remunerated or otherwise) and incorporate into the non-GPL releases.

But yes, if you want to maintain and build a dual-licenced codebase you have extra work to do.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[james_gnz]

where you run into trouble: ...
someone puts a patch against BAR in the GPL version out on GitHub (or anywhere else). ...
Unless you get permission from the patch creator you can't pull BAZ back into your proprietary trunk. ...
So sure someone can dual licence, but it can really be a PITA, and thus just going MIT licence is so much less headache.

If you license the free version under MIT/BSD, then derivatives can have additional requirements (e.g. derivatives could be made proprietary by someone else), so you can't necessarily even incorporate derivatives into the free version, let alone your proprietary version. You'd be worse off, not better off.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[james_gnz]

No. You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries. The terms of the GPL require everyone, including the original copyright holder, to provide source to anyone they gave a binary to and grant these people the right to modify and redistribute...

The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)

To create a proprietary version the original copyright holder has to dual license. ...

You don't technically have to dual license the free version yourself. What you do need, if you want to incorporate derivatives into your proprietary version, is to have the authors of derivatives dual license their contributions. Dual licensing the free version shows the authors of derivatives, by example, what you would like them to do.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[UnknownSoldier]

> You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries.

Yes you can, it's call dual licensing.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[drnb]

> You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries.

Yes you can, it's call dual licensing.

Did you read my second paragraph, I explained dual licensing? Only the non-GPL instance of your code can make proprietary binaries, never the GPL instance.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[drnb]

No. A single code base can be shared under GPL and published in binary form under a different licence.

The non-GPL is an entirely separate work.

It can be built from the same code base. The GPL does not prevent this, where the code is owned by the person creating the non-GPL licenced version.

Yet it is an entirely separate work from the perspective of the GPL, not a derivative as the original post I responded to suggested. Plus the way things typically work i that the non-GPL version is the standard company version and the GPL version is a derivative of that.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[drnb]

No. You can not GPL your own code and make proprietary binaries. The terms of the GPL require everyone, including the original copyright holder, to provide source to anyone they gave a binary to and grant these people the right to modify and redistribute...

The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)

That's not the issue. The issue is if the copyright holder can release a proprietary binary built from the GPL version of their source code, no they can not. The proprietary version must be built from source code without the GPL.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[james_gnz]

The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)

That's not the issue. The issue is if the copyright holder can release a proprietary binary built from the GPL version of their source code, no they can not.

It is the same issue, because binaries are a kind of derivative of the source. The GPL treats them as a special case, but that doesn't matter, because the copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the GPL. The GPL acts to grant others a subset of the rights that the copyright holder already has. But even if the copyright holder did have to agree to the GPL, only they would have a legal right to sue themselves for breach of it. (If there were multiple authors, then any could enforce the licence against the others, though.)

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[drnb]

The copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the licence to get rights to modify and redistribute their own code, because they already have these rights anyway. (Even if they did, however, it still wouldn't be a problem, because only the copyright holder can enforce the licence.)

That's not the issue. The issue is if the copyright holder can release a proprietary binary built from the GPL version of their source code, no they can not.

It is the same issue, because binaries are a kind of derivative of the source. The GPL treats them as a special case, but that doesn't matter, because the copyright holder doesn't have to agree to the GPL. The GPL acts to grant others a subset of the rights that the copyright holder already has.

When the copyright holder voluntarily uses the GPL that instance of their source code is absolutely bound by the GPL. That is why dual licensing is necessary for proprietary distribution, a non-GPL instance is required.

Re:GPL can never create proprietary apps/games

[james_gnz]

When the copyright holder voluntarily uses the GPL that instance of their source code is absolutely bound by the GPL. That is why dual licensing is necessary for proprietary distribution, a non-GPL instance is required.

I'm at a loss to understand how you think this could work. If the copyright holder licenses a work under the GPL, and doesn't adhere to the terms of the licence themselves, who do you think could sue them, and for what? (e.g. Do you think licensees could sue them for breach of copyright?)

In other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard pwned a shitton of custom maps for Warcraft 3 with patch 1.28 and the only way to update the game is through automatic patcher, no standalone patch in sight. It took me 2 days and 3 reinstalls to even manage to update the game because of some random bug in the update process.

Starcraft vs Starcraft 2

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't played it, but Starcraft 2 is what's showing on my Blizzard App launcher.

Free!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope that run on linux

But the questions remain...

[Travelsonic]

Will I require more vespene gas?
Have I enough minerals?
Must I construct additional pylons?
And what about supply depots, are additional supply depots required?

Re:But the questions remain...

[darkjedi521]

You need to spawn more overlords first.

Re:But the questions remain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not enough energy!

Fractured English?

[Anonymous Coward]

"would've cost $10-15 bucks"

In English, this is "would've cost 10 to 15 dollar bucks."

Still an Evil Company

[StormReaver]

After Blizzard attacked the bnetd developers, I swore I would never buy, or even play, another Blizzard game. At that point, Blizzard became an evil company.

That still stands.

I won't even entertain the notion of putting one byte of Blizzard code on my system.

Re:Still an Evil Company

[Ash-Fox]

After Blizzard attacked the bnetd developers

Attacked!? Did they hunt down where they lived, came into their home and kicked their heads in or something?

my two cents...

[Anonymous Coward]

...never played before. I checked out the website and the screenshots. looks a bunch of weebles. fuck a bunch of weebles.

What will the player base be like

[SCVonSteroids]

I wonder... Will it be like it used to? Bnet being home to BGH/Fastest Map/UMS pub games and private servers being where any serious competition is at? Must not have logged on this game in at least 5-6 years, but hopefully nothing changed much in that regard. Pretty excited for the hi-res version, this is THE game that kept my childhood sane.

Starcraft

[Phusion]

Well, this is pretty cool I suppose. I doubt there are many people out there who haven't played it yet and are thinking "Yay, finally I can enjoy Starcraft!" -- but this will drum up support for their new Starcraft: Remastered product, which is what's of real interest here. Also, as a gamer in his 30's, I'm forgetting the younger generation who may not have even bothered with a 20 year old RTS from Blizzard. I remember being completely blown away when SC came out, having only seen Warcraft's older engine, seeing SC in all of its glory was amazing. Even the music is great. The graphics don't exactly amaze anymore (but neither did SC2), but that's what the Remastered project is for.

Local LAN play?

[ilsaloving]

What about local LAN play? Blizzard ruined the entire franchise for me when they took away local play options.

I realize it's hard for a lot of people to imagine now-a-days, especially Blizzard management, but there are in fact several scenarios where not having to route through the internet is beneficial, if not a requirement.

Re:Local LAN play?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am also wondering about this. Does it still support LAN play or did Blizzard strip it out because "nobody wants that feature anymore"? You are not alone in this. I completely lost interest in Blizzard's games when they eliminated this option.

Broken

[Agripa]

I tried installing it twice after following the recommendations on the forums and all I get is:

"This application encountered an unexpected error" with a mysterious error code.

Reading through the mysterious failures to work and the various things that patch 1.18 breaks on the forum is depressing.

Ancient by comparison

[JThundley]

The new graphics aren't making the original look "ancient by comparison." It looks a little better, but it's really not a huge difference. There's a Blizzard trailer with comparisons.