If you could add one thing to Vanilla Doom

Phil1984, your point? Ty doesn't delete everything that could be an infringement, but if a text file in the archive specifically says "no" he follows that author's choice unless permission is somehow obtained to do otherwise.

Maes, editing a package impacts the way the files may be distributed or copied, and that's only under the author's prerogative. You have to take what the author gives "as is" and only mess with it "at home" unless he gives you extra rights.

You might as well say authors don't intend to have bugs in their WADs. Who on his right mind wants his stuff to have technical issues? But only the author can fix those, because how to fix them is up to him. Likewise, how to distribute an add-on in this age of source ports is up to him only, if he didn't give permission to edit the files he offered.

As for your last question, there's no reason to believe modification excludes fixes to allow the files to install or work properly wherever. So he'd be giving permission to do that unless he said something like "you can modify this but only if you create derivatives with their own artistic merit and not just to fix it or something like that."

If it really bothers anyone that much, why not pay for the webspace to host the new, updated files and bypass all the idgame rules. A readme.txt from 94 on a non-profit, third party add-on for a game that, quite frankly, not many people play anymore, will never see a court-room. More importantly, and I might being going out on a limb here, the original authors don't care. They don't, end of story. If they did, they would update the archives themselves. Most of them are probably on their second or third child, long paid off with student loans and watching MSNBC like boring, uncaring 30 somethings do.

Myk, with all due respect, you are an ignorant fool!

We are not in 1996 anymore and the vast majority of today's computer users has never seen a batch file and many don't even know how to use the command line so these mods are useless to them.

Please tell me: What puts you in a position to decide policy? I've known you for years as a hard-core ultra-conservative when it comes to Doom so honestly this rigid attitude you show here doesn't really surprise me. It's still grating that you are dead-set against preservation of classic mods that have basically become unusable by technology's advances just by principle.

Clearly the makers of these WADs never meant to have them become obsolete.

In Strain's case it's a minor annoyance because the installer still works - but projects like Cleimos 2 and Obtic are basically useless today because their packages depend on obsolete conditions. The only way I can make the Obtic package work is by loading the WAD into XWE or SlumpEd and modify it by hand because the installer is a destructive piece of crap that's basically unusable.

So the question remains: What did the makers intend? Clearly not that their hard work becomes obsolete due to lack of forward thinking. This by itself is not something I'd blame them for - who could have guessed in 1995 that Doom is still thriving 14 years later? I'd rather choose to blame people like you. You personally may not have an interest in changing this as your playing habits clearly show. But face it: You are the minority here, albeit a vocal one. Most people today have no use for Doom.exe or even Chocolate Doom. They want to play the game with something more modern and not get bogged down by ancient technicalities.

Essentially the only person who could make a final decision is Ty Halderman. All I can say is if I was the /idgames archive maintainer I'd set up an unambiguous policy that any WAD must be playable with a modern port without the need of running any kind of installation tool.

myk said:

It's the reason free or more free software exists. You let people modify it so it can live on in time, among other things. It's not perverse because these people chose not to let other people modify their stuff.

They didn't say that. The text doesn't say that.

"MAY NOT use as a basis to create additional levels" means quite clearly "you can't take my work and modify it to create additional levels". It's "don't take credit for my stuff".

It's not "don't adapt it to be installed in a simpler way 15 years from now when computing has been completely changed and gosh, people will still play Doom in 15 years from now? Why, I never thought they would."

I'd buy the "chose not to allow that" if the language of the text supported it (e.g.: "You MAY NOT adapt it to still be compatible with future evolutions of the Doom engine") or if there was indeed a chance that they would have been prescient that the Doom engine would be open sourced and that ten gazillion ports would be created from it.

Sadly the 3 big problem WADs all contain a 'may not modify this package' clause. Clearly the makers did not expect it to become obsolete.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were asked that none would mind fixing their package. Too bad that none of them can't be reached anymore...

Gez said:
They didn't say that. The text doesn't say that.

As I already pointed out and I thought you knew, the basic copyright principle is that you can just look at something, not touch it, unless the author says you can touch it. Not saying means you can't. He used the template instead of writing something more custom detailing what you may do more specifically and isn't giving the usual permission to create derivative or modified works based on it, unlike with the add-ons that take the other template option. The reason the template is worded as "additional levels" is because that's the usual, generic, type of modification people will do, but the main point is whether you can or can't modify the add-on, through the you MAY or may NOT choice.

I'd buy the "chose not to allow that" if the language of the text supported it (e.g.: "You MAY NOT adapt it to still be compatible with future evolutions of the Doom engine") or if there was indeed a chance that they would have been prescient that the Doom engine would be open sourced and that ten gazillion ports would be created from it.

Heh, that would be the case if by default authors passed copyrights of their works to others unless otherwise noted, but it's the other way around. Even if you were to assume that 95% of people are to be okay with such modification of their work you don't know if this guy is in that 5% that would deny it.

Phil1984 said:

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but there are many many wads out there on the /idgames that use resources from iwads other than the one that is required to run the game (i.e. hexen, heretic, final doom etc etc), yet no-one cares despite the obvious copy-write infringement.
I therefore, do not see why it is such a big deal to repackage wads from the past that one would otherwise have to jump through hoops to play.

It's a bit like arguing with a police officer about a speed ticket:

-But officer, why are you fining me when there are dozens of other motorists speeding past us and breaking the speed limit as we speak?
-That maybe true, but it's you whom I pulled over.

Graf Zahl said:

It wouldn't surprise me at all if they were asked that none would mind fixing their package. Too bad that none of them can't be reached anymore...

At this point, it's purely an ideological matter, as well as more or less strict or creative interpretation of the "MAY NOT modify" clause. E.g. myk wouldn't do it, you and I would, and each with rock-solid arguments on his behalf.

That being said, I'd be looking for precedents on similar matters (Rampage Doom comes to mind, where a legalized download was available for a while despite the original author vocally bitching about it).

I guess the only way to see how far it'd go would be to actually package it and releasing it in idgames claiming that permission has been obtained (Ty only rejects anonymous submissions, on the grounds that permission couldn't have been obtained, as well as very obvious plagiarism. All the rest is pretty much fair game).

Ah, I missed a post of yours, Graf:

Graf Zahl said:
Please tell me: What puts you in a position to decide policy?

As a supermod here I have some ability to make decisions on content on the forums. Outside of that, you're the one assuming I'm "deciding a policy." As far as I'm concerned, I'm arguing a position, just like you are.

It's still grating that you are dead-set against preservation of classic mods that have basically become unusable by technology's advances just by principle.

This is nonsense. My position is a straightforward acceptation of copyrights, which I've explained a few times for its benefit on the community; that unless you can ask an author, take what his text file says for granted. I'm not against the preservation of old add-ons. I simply won't run over authors' rights, while not having a clear go-ahead from them.

So the question remains: What did the makers intend? Clearly not that their hard work becomes obsolete due to lack of forward thinking.

Perhaps, but they might want to be involved in deciding how such adaptations may occur, considering what they said in the text files about not touching their work. Otherwise, they may be quite happy and dandy that their mods still work or install through DOSBox or whatever.

All I can say is if I was the /idgames archive maintainer I'd set up an unambiguous policy that any WAD must be playable with a modern port without the need of running any kind of installation tool.

Yeah, but then the bulk of your particular passion or agenda in the community is modern source ports. Of course you would do something like that.

Maes said:
I guess the only way to see how far it'd go would be to actually package it and releasing it in idgames claiming that permission has been obtained

Interesting. I'll probably link him to your post if such a file is uploaded, and then maybe loser you a period for being a dishonest lamer.

If you tried to say that actual permission were obtained, as opposed to a bullshit forgery, as you post came out, there would be no issue.

Remember, though, that he might also reject it simply because it's just a variant of a hosted file.

myk said:

Yeah, but then the bulk of your particular passion or agenda in the community is modern source ports. Of course you would do something like that.

OH GOD I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE

Even Chocolate Doom is a Modern source port with this logic.

I talked with Mr. Elusive, whose work got him into id- that work? ABYSS. I modified the structure of the wad to be playable on modern source ports. His response was akin to "you didn't have to contact me about it, as long as it plays on as many ports as possible".

He went on to say that he actually appreciated that his work could be played by as many as possible. That got me thinking: What kind of Mapper WOULDN'T want their creations played by as many as possible? In a way, I view repackaging such old pwads as a kindness gesture, not a desecration. However, if the benefits of repackaging a wad to make it playable outweighs the costs of a former doomer getting pissed off, Then tough shit what he thinks. You may call it blasphemous, but I think it ensures the mods live on, and not wasting away in the archives due to stupid DOS/DeuSF/version garbage. There's respecting wishes, and then there's letting people play the goddamn wads for once.

And myk, To me it seems that you are doing nothing but an attempt to discourage people from ever playing these wads. And at this point, telling us to just do it the old way or do without is retarded. Going as far as to downgrade my version of doom to play a WAD on a platform that can't even run DOS to begin with? Why? Why do you think this is a good idea?!

And before you say DOSBOX or Virtual machines- No. I dont even want to deal with DOS anymore. If, by your definition, I don't deserve to play wads that would require such a ridiculous set-up, then I really cannot take advice seriously from you anymore.

Csonicgo said:
I talked with Mr. Elusive, whose work got him into id- that work? ABYSS. I modified the structure of the wad to be playable on modern source ports. His response was akin to "you didn't have to contact me about it, as long as it plays on as many ports as possible".

And is this man the universal spokesman for all authors? I've already addressed this. I agree many will not mind but the only way to know what each in particular would accept is by asking them specifically. People can have a wide range of attitudes in regard to something like this. That's how it works with any creative work. Even those who have reasons to say "No" that others might think are crazy, have full rights to decide what can be done with their work.

And myk, To me it seems that you are doing nothing but an attempt to discourage people from ever playing these wads.

Indeed, and I get special dead-kitten credits from Raptor Jesus for every Halo fan that doesn't play them!

Why? Why do you think this is a good idea?!

Because the author didn't give you permission to modify his work.

And before you say DOSBOX or Virtual machines- No. I dont even want to deal with DOS anymore.

Before? That was a while ago. Your whole post is ME ME ME (or US, since you think you talk for everybody) but we're talking about something that is not yours. Something that is a gift under certain conditions. Don't want to deal with DOS? Go play something that doesn't require it during installation. There are 10000 other PWADs to choose from.

FWIW:
All you have to do to make STRAIN for instance run under a source port like EE is the following.

1. Unpack the files named Strain.001-004 from strain10.zip.
2. Compile them into one file with this command line.
copy/b strain.001+strain.002+strain.003+strain.004 strain.exe
3. Run Strain.exe
4. Delete all files except Strain.deh and Strain.wad.
5. Run the files with your source port of choice.

I see how it may become problematic running the self extracting exe for anyone not using windows. But Dosbox or any other emulator (WinE?) can run it fine. All you really need to know is how to merge a split file.

Another interesting example is Fistful of Doom. (a TC that for whatever reason had a rather complicated process ran everytime you wanted to play it)

1. Unzip the wad files.
2. Run the files with your source port of choice.

IMO. This is not nearly as big of a problem as you guys make it out to be.

myk said:

Because the author didn't give you permission to modify his work.

myk said:

I simply won't run over authors' rights, while not having a clear go-ahead from them.

Now, that's just begging the question.

It assumes that modifying includes repackaging. It also assumes that said author shares that exact same viewpoint on the matter, therefore since the author disapproved of modifying, he must also disapprove of repackaging, something which none here can prove or disprove.

We can't even be certain that he disapproved of modifications or derivative works only in the strictest sense of using his level and resources as a base for entirely new one: he might have been thinking something else in the back of his head for all we know. Or maybe not. Who knows? Not me, not myk, perhaps not even the author himself, by now.

This is not meant to be an ad-populum argument, but I merely want to point out that the author might not share your viewpoint, so you may not be actually acting in his best interests, nor protecting his rights.

Like it or not, it's an ambiguous situation. You can't say whether repackaging would be against his original wishes anymore than I can say that he would approve, without actually contacting him.

The non-modification clause is really of no help here, as you only assumed it included repackaging without any sort of evidence (even of anecdotal nature) that it was ever used in that manner. Someone else might consider it neutral on that matter. Let's accept it, this is a kind of grey area.

At this point, one can err on either side of the line:

1. Christen himself a paladin for the side of caution, and opt for "no action is better than potentially going against one's wishes and breaking copyrights". Playing it safe.
   
2. Going ahead and repackaging, believing (perhaps wrongly so) that what he's doing the Right Thing for everyone.
   

As I said, this is more of a clash between schools of thought, rather than solid evidence on either side.

To myk's defense however, I have to admit that perhaps the author knew what he was doing by "tamper proofing" his work (well, up to a point anyway), and one can assume his non-repackaging wishes from there. But it's still only an assumption we can't prove or disprove unless we ask him :-p

@Kristus: that OTTAWA WAD in question uses a set of customized, hermetic, packed files to store its resources, and its customized installation tools are designed to bang directly into the v1.9 IWAD (not even ultimate Doom's).

Just merging a couple of files with copy/b won't cut it. The only method of "fixing" that particular mod without going against myk's reservations would be to release another set of ad-hoc tools that extract the usable resources from the customized files on a per-user basis, so that nothing controversial is released to the public. Well now if the author didn't EVEN want for his work to be played on anything else but pure DOS 6.2 running pure Doom v1.9 on a 486DX/75 with 5 MB of RAM...well...fuck me.

myk said:

Because the author didn't give you permission to modify his work.

The "work" is not being modified, only it's packaging.

Mods in idgames are in zip files. Clearly the zip file is packaging, otherwise unzipping it would be a modification of the "work" and nobody would be able to play the mod.

Similarly the concatenation four files and running a self-extraction process is not (part of) the work, it is only (part of) the packaging.

Maes said:
It assumes that modifying includes repackaging. It also assumes that said author shares that exact same viewpoint on the matter, therefore since the author disapproved of modifying, he must also disapprove of repackaging, something which none here can prove or disprove.

I already referred to the distribution package and how the distributable item is that package (the installation files) and not some "unpacked result" (the modified IWAD.) What the author gives you is only the portion he made, more or less, which is dependent on that mix with IWAD content. That distributed portion, as it is, is protected by copyrights. My position does not assume the author shares any conception with me. On the contrary, my position is opposed to the idea that we can assume what the author thinks without hearing it from him. It simply abides by copyright.

This is not meant to be an ad-populum argument, but I merely want to point out that the author might not share your viewpoint, so you may not be actually acting in his best interests, nor protecting his rights.

I could not be protecting his interests without knowing them but as for his rights, yes, because I am following copyright procedures. My position is that he decides what to do with his work, and not me according to some need of mine. If all I have is the text file, that is used, in the strict sense copyrights demand.

Like it or not, it's an ambiguous situation. You can't say whether repackaging would be against his original wishes anymore than I can say that he would approve, without actually contacting him.

His wishes could be anything from "I'll never let anyone edit this in any way" to "I'll let people who ask me and give me a good reason edit it" or even wishes that change during different periods. The dilemma is for those who'd make assumptions or try to guess what he wants. In my case, I'll do nothing with the package unless I can contact the author precisely because I don't know.

myk said:

And is this man the universal spokesman for all authors?

And are you? You say that by default they all want that nobody plays their mods anymore.

myk said:

Even those who have reasons to say "No" that others might think are crazy, have full rights to decide what can be done with their work.

If they actually cared about that, then they'd still be around here and would tell us explicitly that they don't want to.

Copyright is all fine and dandy, but it's also a massive source of problems when it becomes an ideology in and of itself. You are probably aware how unpopular things like the so-called "Digital Rights Management" systems are.

Besides, who cares what the author wants? The author's dead! Once things are out, they're out. The Lumière brothers invented cinema as a funfair distraction for very short movies. The paintings you see in a museum were never painted to be displayed in a museum. Did you think Anne Frank wrote her diary so it would be published worldwide and translated in every language? After famous people are dead, other people dig up the letters they exchanged with others and publish them, do you think that such letters were written to be shared with the whole world, or just with their pen-pal?

It's not what the author wants that matters; it's what is done with the work that does. Copyright, as a method of control, tries to prevent evolution, innovation and reuse. It's repressive, oppressive and reactionary. It is needed because authors need to be credited, plagiarism needs to be discouraged, but it shouldn't be an absolute tyranny. Interoperability is more important than slavish obedience to hypothetical crazy whims.

Further, it is highly hypocritical to be, on the one hand, perfectly okay with blatant copyright infringement (characters, sprites, textures, sounds, items, concepts, etc. ripped from other games or even different media) as long as it's stolen from "outside the community", and on the other hand to enforce grotesque considerations such as "hmm, they probably only wanted their mod to be played on a 486SX16 with 2 megabytes of RAM, a warezed install of MS-DOS 5 and a keyboard whose space key had worn out and only works half the time; so if you don't have such a system then don't play their mod, it's only fair".

kristus said:

Another interesting example is Fistful of Doom. (a TC that for whatever reason had a rather complicated process ran everytime you wanted to play it)

1. Unzip the wad files.
2. Run the files with your source port of choice.

IMO. This is not nearly as big of a problem as you guys make it out to be.

FISTFUL.WAD is the only one that needs to be run. FISTFIX.WAD is only to make it deathmatch compatible and can cause problems in single player.

andrewj said:
The "work" is not being modified, only it's packaging.

It's a from of his work. Like I noted before, the installation files are the distributed materials. These are copyright protected, as distribution and publication are covered by copyright.

Gez said:

And are you? You say that by default they all want that nobody plays their mods anymore.

As Myk has stated so many times over now. He is NOT. At the absence of a recent opinion from the author. He (and anyone) can only go by what is said in the copyright stub at the end of the TXT accompanying the file.

Why is this so hard to understand?

DuckReconMajor said:

FISTFUL.WAD is the only one that needs to be run. FISTFIX.WAD is only to make it deathmatch compatible and can cause problems in single player.

Ah, So that was the reason for that. Thanks. :)

myk said:

It's a from of his work. Like I noted before, the installation files are the distributed materials. These are copyright protected, as distribution and publication are covered by copyright.

Out of curiosity, would my suggested workaround of releasing compatible extraction utilities that created a single source-port compatible PWAD (on a per-user basis aka not meant for distribution) from the customized installer be OK, in this context?

kristus said:

As Myk has stated so many times over now. He is NOT. At the absence of a recent opinion from the author. He (and anyone) can only go by what is said in the copyright stub at the end of the TXT accompanying the file.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because it leads to an assumption that doesn't make sense.

Gez said:

Because it leads to an assumption that doesn't make sense.

No. That's the very thing about it. It doesn't assume anything. It is simply based on the facts that exist.

Sigh...

Sometimes I get really tired by all this copyright bullshit. I have to agree with Gez about one thing: When copyright becomes an ideology that only serves itself it's lost.

Stalemate situations like are being discussed here have too often caused the disappearance of valuable work because with the laws as they are these works cannot be preserved after the copyright holder stopped caring. It's bad enough if this happens to commercially distributed products - but if it happens to free add-ons to a popular game just because there's some people to whom some abstract theories are more important than the actual product it's utterly pathetic.

And you two are close to arguing like that.

Get real. They are not gonna be lost any more than anything else that is on the archives. And as I showed earlier. The entire enterprise you're suggesting is pretty much unnecessary.

The only stalemate here is that Gez and Maes for some reason are think that abiding by what the copyright says includes assumptions. That's comparable to claiming that believing in evolution requires faith.

Gez said:
And are you?

Am I? On all counts I've been an advocate of either asking the authors or checking their text files, not of assuming what they think.

If they actually cared about that, then they'd still be around here and would tell us explicitly that they don't want to.

Yeah, that's like me stealing your wallet and saying "he was looking the other way and didn't see me so he surely didn't care, it's rightly mine now!"

Copyright is all fine and dandy, but it's also a massive source of problems when it becomes an ideology in and of itself.

Ideology? It's just a principle so that unrelated or somewhat related people can know how to deal with creative works, based on the human origin of those works. Some form of it is inevitable in a creative community unless all happen to somehow agree they all share everything. My position isn't ambiguous as when one tries to assume what others want or think. If the author ain't talking, ask the text file.

Besides, who cares what the author wants? The author's dead! Once things are out, they're out.

Yes, the romantic figure of the author is dead, long live the social, legal and inter-textual construct that it really is.

The Lumière brothers invented cinema as a funfair distraction for very short movies. The paintings you see in a museum were never painted to be displayed in a museum. Did you think Anne Frank wrote her diary so it would be published worldwide and translated in every language? After famous people are dead, other people dig up the letters they exchanged with others and publish them, do you think that such letters were written to be shared with the whole world, or just with their pen-pal?

For the most part, these are things that apply after copyrights expired or once they've been transferred due to death of the author, literally, or whatever.

It's not what the author wants that matters; it's what is done with the work that does.

I favor sharing information, but if you try to force that sharing of those who make the effort to produce or process it, the sharing spirit dies.

Copyright, as a method of control, tries to prevent evolution, innovation and reuse. It's repressive, oppressive and reactionary. It is needed because authors need to be credited, plagiarism needs to be discouraged, but it shouldn't be an absolute tyranny.

The problem there is that copyright has been defeated and harnessed by inequity, and not copyright itself. Situations where authors effectively lose their copyrights to employers, producers or corporatist forces are not examples of where copyright is really taking effect as such.

Interoperability is more important than slavish obedience to hypothetical crazy whims.

These "crazy whims" are the text files of the authors of the community. If they're referencing anything in the "copyright and permissions" section, that's copyright principles. Interoperability breaks down when we all start to assume that what's written on those text files applies only when it's convenient to us.

Further, it is highly hypocritical to be, on the one hand, perfectly okay with blatant copyright infringement (characters, sprites, textures, sounds, items, concepts, etc. ripped from other games or even different media) as long as it's stolen from "outside the community", and on the other hand to enforce grotesque considerations such as "hmm, they probably only wanted their mod to be played on a 486SX16 with 2 megabytes of RAM, a warezed install of MS-DOS 5 and a keyboard whose space key had worn out and only works half the time; so if you don't have such a system then don't play their mod, it's only fair".

Probably, but who are you referring to? I am not fond of "ripware" WADs that take stuff from places without permission. I've criticized them more than a few times and have said that the less of them, the better. In any case, it is not hypocritical to look first to the participants of the community because we are the ones that have to deal with each other face to face. In that sense, what happens to a fellow author is more relevant than something in respect to a company or group that has almost nothing to do with the community. It's a matter of proximity.

Maes said:
Out of curiosity, would my suggested workaround of releasing compatible extraction utilities that created a single source-port compatible PWAD (on a per-user basis aka not meant for distribution) from the customized installer be OK, in this context?

I guess. I mean, it's essentially an app that messes with the distribution files in that "at home" sphere.

kristus said:

All you really need to know is how to merge a split file.

Are you serious? I was told that using COPY like this back in the day would do actual filesystem damage.

I guess they were wrong.

kristus said:

Get real. ...The entire enterprise you're suggesting is pretty much unnecessary.

I wish this were the case, but there are still files on idgames that follow stupid rules like dumping raw data files into folders with several batch files that use utilities that refuse to work, aren't included, or fuck up my IWAD. Not that messing with the IWAD is a bad idea, it's only the worst possible damage you could ever do to the integrity of those files!

Could you give me any examples? The only ones I can recall are those sprite replacements people made back in the day using DMGRAPH to insert images into the IWAD of snowmen and bunny rabbits. And those have already been ripped to be used as skins for Legacy, Zdoom etc. (also recall a flamethrower mod)

kristus said:

Could you give me any examples? The only ones I can recall are those sprite replacements people made back in the day using DMGRAPH to insert images into the IWAD of snowmen and bunny rabbits. And those have already been ripped to be used as skins for Legacy, Zdoom etc. (also recall a flamethrower mod)

well, there is Happy Doom, that was mentioned in the DOOM FAQ long ago. one look at that makes you wonder how the hell the author expected that to work at all. And there are some that no longer exist on the internet. :(

kristus said:

Could you give me any examples?

Here, have fun. That's the bad news ;-)

The good news is that the author is apparently alive and well (?) and hopefully we can get some feedback. Don't get all to excited, I'll handle this :-p

As no repercussions for redistributing these works in new packaging will ever come from external sources, determining the proper conduct here is essentially a Doom community matter. I believe that as a community we can decide that copyright laws in their immature state fail to account for a very real difference between packaging and object in digital work, and, therefore, we may distribute old works in new packages while obeying our own superior, advanced, copyright law to the very letter.

Exactly what I said before. We either grow a pair and move on to making some changes around here or morbidly enjoy our petty little brain deadlock while we short-circuit ourselves through our assholes.