edit: @#(! somethings didn't transfer right. i guess i have to do it the hard way...
[/quote]cashto wrote:QUOTE (cashto @ Mar 17 2015, 08:07 PM) Sent this to the internal Microsoft LCA list for third-party copyright permissions, will let you know if I get a response:
QUOTE
Apologies in advance if this is the not the right email alias for such inquires.
I’m looking for a LCA contact who can answer some questions regarding shared-source software which is no longer supported by Microsoft since 2001. I wasn’t able to find answers to these questions on LCAWeb or the guidelines posted at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intel...ty/permissions/.
I’m involved with a gaming community (http://freeallegiance.org/) which has been maintaining and extending a game called Allegiance for the past 11 years. Allegiance was initially developed by MSR in 2000, discontinued in 2001, and released under the Microsoft Research Shared Source license agreement (MSR-SSLA) in 2004 (a copy of which can be found here).
Recently we have been looking at ways we could better promote the game and grow the community. Although our interest is non-commercial, we had a few questions we wanted clarification on:
* Does the shared-source license permit us to redistribute Allegiance as a Free-to-Play game via commercial gaming sites or marketplaces (particularly Steam)?
* Does the shared-source license permit us to modify Allegiance in ways that integrate it with a commercial gaming site or services (again, such as Steam)? Examples of such modifications would be leaderboards, instant messaging, friends lists, social networking, etc.
* If the shared-source license does not permit us to redistribute Allegiance via commercial marketplaces, or integrate with their services, how could we go about getting such permission?
[quote=")-->QUOTE ( @ Mar 18 2015, 04:40 PM) Response:
QUOTE Hi, [cashto] –
Can you provide a link to Steam or other similar game distribution site? I’d like to know more about their commercialization model before I answer your questions.[/quote]
Is http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/ a good link to describe Steam from a publisher point of view?
Also, Desura was mentioned in this thread ... should I point them to http://www.desura.com/development as well?
Personally, I also have a question about this:
QUOTE 3. Who sets the price for my game on Steam?
Pricing is very title specific, and we've got a lot of data and experience to help you decide on what the best price is for your title. We'll work with you to figure out pricing.[/quote]
Do we have control, at least, as to whether the game will be free-to-play or not? Are there many examples of games on Steam which are truly free-to-play (no microtransactions, premium content, pay-to-win, etc)?[/quote]
QUOTE Here’s Steam’s page for publishers who are seeking to distribute games on their network:
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/
That page is geared towards publishers who want to sell their game, but Steam also hosts a fair number of free-to-play games (which I believe the majority of which are truly free-to-play, without premium content / microtransactions / pay-to-win, etc).
http://store.steampowered.com/genre/Free%2...b=MostPlayed#p4
Another site the community is looking at is Desura, which is similar to Steam but targeted at smaller, independent game makers:
http://www.desura.com/development
Which also hosts as selection of free-to-play games:
http://www.desura.com/#price=0
Thanks,
- cashto[/quote]
QUOTE ( @ Mar 19 2015, 06:04 PM) Response:
QUOTE Does Steam only make money if the game licensor charges a fee? I didn’t see any advertising on the site.[/quote]
AFAIK the answer is no (Steam doesn't make money directly on F2P games), but I don't have any evidence or argument to back that assertion up. If anyone has more authoritative information I could share it with the lawyer I am speaking to.
(Personally, I would imagine Microsoft would also care that hosting free-to-play games add value to a website even if they don't drive any revenue, and that would be considered a commercial purpose.)[/quote]
QUOTE Thank you for taking the time to research my questions.
My understanding is that Steam and Desura do not make money directly on free-to-play games or through advertising. The benefit to them, though, is that it adds value to their marketplace and expands their audience to have a wide selection of games, both free and paid. That’s where we think we run afoul of the “commercial gain to you or others” phrase.
It’s at least a gray area. One solution for us would be able to get a letter of interpretation that states that Microsoft will not consider it infringing commercial use under such-and-such conditions. Otherwise, we’d need to look into getting it relicensed under something less restrictive, like the MS-PL, but I wouldn’t know who to talk to in order to start that conversation.
Any pointers you can give would be greatly appreciated.
- cashto[/quote]
QUOTE (response:)
I have to say I agree with you that I think the site would be pushing the limits of what is permitted under the license. I agree that the best way to deal with it is to get it re-licensed under MS-PL. I’m trying to track down who can help with this, but since the software has been unsupported for so long, this is difficult (when we say ‘unsupported’, that also includes LCA support).
Let me dig a little more.[/quote]
QUOTE (response:)
I spoke a few folks, and we may have a path forward. First, the code is copyrighted by Microsoft Corporation, with no reference to third party code or contributions. This means that we should be able to re-license the code under an open source license like MS-PL or MIT – all you’d have to do is submit a request in the OSS Tool to “Release Microsoft Code Under an OSS License”. This, however, assumes that there was no third party code in the original source and no contributions have been accepted that belong to a third party (even if they were contributed under the MSR-SSLA).
Unfortunately, I’m not sure of any method we can verify either of those two questions, given how much time has passed since the code has been supported. Typically, we’d require a code scan of any code being released in this manner (which you’d have to pay for). Given the length of time since this code was supported, however, it might be possible to have a business risk decision made to move forward without a scan. Talk to your manager and see if he or she would support this.
QUOTE (from cashto)
Wouldn’t an IP scan have been done when the code was initially released under MSR-SSLA?
The community has made contributions to the code since it was released in 2004, under the MSR-SSLA, but if I understand correctly – they retain ownership of those contributions and can make the decision to relicense them under the MS-PL or other license. To my knowledge, no other IP belonging to a third party has been contributed – but if they have, the liability for that belongs to the community, and not to Microsoft, correct?
In short, the work to be relicensed is not the code as it exists today, but the code as released in 2004 – Microsoft certifies it contains no third-party IP (and I presume we already did that when we first decided to release the code, so no need to repeat the same due diligence on the same bits). Going forward, it’s the community’s responsibility to ensure that it owns all IP contributed since that date.
The other issue, though, is approval. In the OSS Tool I see I need an Initial and Final Business approver (the Final approver being an executive) – not sure who these names would be. Certainly not my management chain – as I said, I work on something unrelated, and this is a personal interest only. Perhaps someone in MSR?
Again many thanks for your help,
- cashto[/quote]
[quote=")-->QUOTE ( @ Mar 25 2015, 02:56 PM) Still working on this. Can't share the details at this point, (other than it looks like I'll have to talk to Rick Rashid), but it seems I might have a chance of pulling this off. Not a large chance, but it's something.[/quote]
QUOTE (cashto @ Mar 25 2015, 04:35 PM) Honestly I don't think Microsoft gives a @#(! about Allegiance -- hasn't since 2001. The noncommercial limitation is there because the MSR-SSLA was the "sensible default" at the time (and for some software released under the MSR-SSLA, maybe the noncommercial limitation makes sense).
But honestly no one at Microsoft cares whether anyone makes money off Allegiance or not. Even if we pirated the hell out of Allegiance, I doubt we would ever have to seriously worry about Microsoft legal ever darkening our door. They have much bigger fish to fry.
Still, it's worth it to protect not only FAO from legal liability, but Steam, Desura, and other partners as well. Plus it's just the right thing to do.
The hurdle is all about negotiating the bureaucracy and finding the right someone who can be arsed to lift a finger, because that's literally all it would take.[/quote]
Hey Backtrack. Yeah. 7. Crazy.solap wrote:QUOTE (solap @ Apr 20 2015, 10:10 PM) QUOTE (backtrak)Hi Solap,
Do you think it would be possible to have MS move the license to another MS license? Specifically the MS-PL license: http://opensource.org/licenses/MS-PL
I think that if MS had been on board with the open source movement then, like it is today, MS-PL would have been the license that Allegiance would have gone out under. My gut says chances are that MSR-SSLA was selected was because it was both in play inside MSR and was the closest thing to open source licensing available at the time to use with minimal effort. (Actually, you're probably one of the few people who could confirm that one! wink.gif
Thanks again for checking up on us, it's a great morale booster to have you stop by!
Also: 7 kids?? cool.gif laugh.gif cool.gif
Thanks,
-BT
They will want to know why you want the license changed. I don't understand that myself. I'm happy to have a phone call with whomever is in charge of the project.[/quote]
$#@! me, i put more work into that than i wanted to, still not 100% happy with it, but the BB code is being a bitch.
