ZDaemon Contest

NiGHTMARE said:

No it isn't. The shareware documentation covers doom1.wad as well as doom.exe. While the restrictions on the .exe may have been made pointless by the release of the source code, the source code and its license does NOT include doom1.wad - this is still covered by the license for the shareware version.

Exactly. Those are the conditions under which id Software has chosen to distribute Doom.

The source port source and executable may be released under the GPL, but that does not excuse the port author or the port users to use the source port to go against the stated wishes of id Software in a matter related to the game as a whole--which is not under the GPL.

The GPL is not your carte blanche to do as you see fit.

Think of it this way. We're questioning whether or not we think having the "no -file" parameter is legal or not. You guys who say that id software did this to prevent addons and encourage them to buy the retail version are 100% correct. I coulden't agree with you more.

Keep in mind this, the -file param. was taken out to encourage you to buy the full version. With any other source port running shareware: Darn..I can't play any addon without the full version.

But wait a minute...

How about if I just download freedoom and run my addon that way? Either way I don't have to pay for the full version. =)

Freedoom is just another way of removing the -file restriction, only it will work for *any* port. See what I mean? No copyrighted material is being distributed out. These addons for the shareware have to be orginal work and they have to use all the graphics that came with Doom1.wad. So nothing from the retail product is going into our free offerings.

Problems? I didn't think so. =)

No, the problem exists where you seem to think the conditions of use for the shareware Doom changes depending on what executable you run with it.

The shareware Doom release is not put out for you to do free as you please.

Night-Fang, you say one can download Freedoom instead, but that's not a valid argument here. Freedoom is not DOOM, it doesn't have its id-copyrighted material (it has the user-made contributions instead.) You might as well say they could play Duke Nukem instead of DOOM. The Freedoom IWADs, like the DOOM IWADs, allow you to play zdaemon, but they are both different materials. The shareware IWAD is among the DOOM IWADs, and unlike Freedoom, gives you a taste of id-made stuff (Imp sprites, those particular slime and water flats, the Phobos sky, the death sound of the Baron of Hell, Bobby Prince's music, and so on) and to use those IWADs you must comply with id's copyrights.

Think about it; id made an explicit request that has been respected by users through the years notwithstanding the possibility of making PWADs or source code modifications. Zdaemon isn't just some obscure mod hardly anyone heard about, it's presently the most popular on-line DOOM source mod. I don't think that making it encourage shareware-compatible PWADs against id's wishes is the best of things. It gets worse when you notice that this will end up emitted by a TV channel for the public to see. What will id say if they notice their software is being misused this way?

I think that you could still manage to do the contest, but restricting any servers using the new PWAD for owners of the registered or commercial games. You can still allow other people to play on doom1's E1M1, which is a damn fine DM map for DOOM. This way you would avoid presenting and using id's software inappropaitely and might even encorage some new users to buy the game, due to the TechTV event. This would save you from possible conflicts with either TechTV or id Software (not to mention between them.)

Here's a thought.

Part I.

Why not change the contest to read: "Make an episode1 compatible map to be featured on the tss lan party." Thats legal.

Part II.

Have the tss server use the registered version of Doom and the winning pwad. And limit the use of Doom.wad to only episode1. The last time I checked, csdoom/zdaemon doesn't care if you connect to a registered Doom iwad server with the shareware iwad.. Just as long as its playing episode1.

Part III.

Modify the zdaemon source to remove the check of pwads with shareware which triggers the fatal error from d_main. Since Nightfang can freely modify his code, theres nothing wrong with that.

Conclusion:

If People playing on servers with shareware doom and using pwads. Let idsoftware get them for licensing violations. There are way too many lawyer-wanna-bes and gpl freedom fighters around here. Why do you ppl constantly police yourselves? Just relax, go smoke some weed, have a cold beer, or maybe shutdown your pc for an hour or two...

The reason people round here care about honouring id's request is much the same reason that we care about Doomworld not becoming a warez information exchange: we feel a duty to play fair towards id because they provided us with such a great game and made it so easily modifiable.

Zdaemon removing the "no pwad with shareware" restriction probably doesn't itself violate id's request (it might violate other things - I haven't checked, but that's not the issue here). However, it is highly suspect since it's only purpose is to allow people to use pwads that do violate it, or indeed to encourage people to make such pwads.

To clarify: it is the pwads being asked for by this competition that would violate id's request, (probably) not the ill-advised change in Zdaemon.

So, ummm... is anyone actually going to enter this contest, given all this legal stuff? :)

There's apparently already one entry, according to the contest page.

myk said:

The biggest restriction would be on PWADs that use id-based resources, those would be entirely illegal unless used along with the original IWADs

Having the original IWAD doesnt give you the right to use the material from it. id basically turn a blind eye, although some small uses of it could be considered "fair use".

If from the start you would have made sure Freedoom was to be incompatible with existing PWADs by using new TEXTURE and PNAMES lumps for it, for instance, you would be totally free of any possible questioning from Carmack and id Software. It would have been better, from my point of view, considering that even if many PWADs don't use IWAD-based resources, many of the classic PWADs do, and they won't look too good when used with Freedoom... and even some other PWADs using custom (but not id-based) resources might turn out crappy with Freedoom, as they were designed with the original stuff in mind, and some bits and ends would not probably combine properly with the new resources.

Freedoom is intended to be "compatible" with the original. You can still play pwads, they just dont look perfect. Its impossible to get it perfect because the textures would have to be identical to the original, something we clearly cant do. But its really a cosmetic thing - I think the ability to play PWADs in freedoom is important, even if they dont appear perfectly.

If anything, some of the textures are too close to the original doom ones. Carmack has said "You cant re-create anything which is clearly our work". And besides, if we cant make textures which are copies of the original ones, we might as well do something original and new.

Raider said:

The restriction that disallows the “-file” option is located in the “doom.exe” source code. Quoting a statement from documentation released from ID prior to the release of the doom source code is pointless. The licensing agreement has obviously changed since then. If you go by that documentation, it would also be illegal to modify the game engine itself, which is clearly no longer the case.

Theres nothing wrong with removing the '-file' restriction from the doom source code, because its GPLed. This isnt the issue. The issue is that the copyright restrictions on the shareware IWAD (from what I understand) say that you cannot use it to play add-on wads.

NiGHTMARE said:

BTW, are all these people who only play the shareware version so cheap that they won't buy a game which only costs something like $5?

oh I'm sorry you haven't heard about my story. My dad thinks doom crashes the computer, so he wouldn't let me buy it (even if it is cheap..and the computer is not mine, btw. he doesn't want me buying other games either.."

Some of the guys with shareware MIGHT have the same problem..

fraggle said:

Having the original IWAD doesnt give you the right to use the material from it. id basically turn a blind eye, although some small uses of it could be considered "fair use".

According to the only explicit written statement that I know about add-ons from id Software you can, but the same statement (the EULA from the Collector's Edition, the latest and seemingly final DOOM release form) also seems to give add-ons certain dependency on id's copyright over DOOM. According to this EULA, the main condition behind the existence of user made add-ons in fully DOOM compatible (WAD) format is that they are made exclusively for the commercial DOOM games. Section 2, "Permitted New Creations" states id's apparent stance on the matter:

http://www.doom2.net/~mykdoom/misc/EULA.TXT

fraggle said:

Theres nothing wrong with removing the '-file' restriction from the doom source code, because its GPLed. This isnt the issue. The issue is that the copyright restrictions on the shareware IWAD (from what I understand) say that you cannot use it to play add-on wads.

Hmm, if you have GPLed software that is designed to be used specifically with propietary software, are you not obliged to make sure the functionality of your work does not infringe upon the other copyright when used normally?

The source code is GPLed, and that basically allows you to do as you please with it as long as the code in it is new or also under the GPL, but when used in combination with software under a different license aren't you obliged by that copyright to make sure the intended mode of usage doesn't produce a misuse of the other software?

I'm aware that software can always breach copyrights when used in generic or unusual ways (thus software makers provide limited warranties and disclaimers), but here we are talking about the principal usage of the shareware; running the game with the commercial IWAD resources.

I mean, you could produce DOOM source code based software without the -file block for the shareware (or a similar safety method) but only if you made it noncompatible with the shareware IWAD. Not because of what the GPL does or doesn't allow, but because of the other software's copyrights.

Am I mistaken? If so, how are such matters handled?

I'll enter, you should all give up now >:P

Screw this;


This is all over my head and I don't think i'm going to continue reading bull that I don't understand. All you guys have been trying to prove that this is illegal. But has far as I have read, the only one who has said what we should do about this situation is will. No, actually myk and Nightfang also put up suggestions.

Hmm...try coming to a conclusion..sometime..before this contest is over! >:|

Tai said:

Screw this;


This is all over my head and I don't think i'm going to continue reading bull that I don't understand. All you guys have been trying to prove that this is illegal. But has far as I have read, the only one who has said what we should do about this situation is will. No, actually myk and Nightfang also put up suggestions.

Hmm...=\. *Goes to figure out what to make for his wad, since this bull is over his head*.

It's not bull so I'll put it simply.

1.) The GPL (General Public License) covers the source code for the exe ONLY. The doom IWADs are still under Id's copyrights.

2.) No one is allowed to make PWADs for the doom 1 shareware. This is so there is incentive for people to actually buy the game to play PWADs. Remember, even after 9 1/2 years, they still make some money off it.

3.) Freedoom is not under Id's copyrights because it does not use any of their resources. Big difference between Id and freeware contributers.

NiGHTMARE said:

No it isn't. The shareware documentation covers doom1.wad as well as doom.exe. While the restrictions on the .exe may have been made pointless by the release of the source code, the source code and its license does NOT include doom1.wad - this is still covered by the license for the shareware version.

Yup. 100% correct. However, we aren't modifiying doom1.wad. This is mearly a 1 level addon that is seperate from doom1.wad

Night-Fang said:

Yup. 100% correct. However, we aren't modifiying doom1.wad. This is mearly a 1 level addon that is seperate from doom1.wad

Modifying doom1.wad is not the issue at all. The fact is that you are legally restricted from making your own Doom add-ons which work in conjunction with doom1.wad. Doing so brakes the copyright and is therefore illegal.

NiGHTMARE said:

Modifying doom1.wad is not the issue at all. The fact is that you are legally restricted from making your own Doom add-ons which work in conjunction with doom1.wad. Doing so brakes the copyright and is therefore illegal.

ehh, so far i've only heard you can't modify doom1.wad.. that little bit in the FAQ doesn't saying anything about running addons... either there's some information elsewhere i haven't seen here. not allowing someone to "modify the levels for the shareware version of DOOM" says nothing about making a doom shareware addon.

you could say "bleh, that's because doom1.exe doesn't allow you to RUN addons" but the fact of the matter is, legally speaking you have to take it as is, rather than modify the speech to match the original intention, which was stated rather bluntly in the second sentence: "We feel that the distribution of new levels that work with the shareware version of DOOM will lessen a potential user's incentive to purchase the registered version." however, this is not a part of their legal request, it's just a rationalization behind it.

And you'd think people would be smart enough to respect Id's wishes. After all, they gave us DooM.

ravage said:

And you'd think people would be smart enough to respect Id's wishes. After all, they gave us DooM.

heh, the id of today hasn't given me anything. i lost all respect for id when they went from being a company devoted to making good games to a company devoted to making fat paychecks.

sargebaldy said:

heh, the id of today hasn't given me anything. i lost all respect for id when they went from being a company devoted to making good games to a company devoted to making fat paychecks.

no now go away. They're still making good games, just making a profit on the side. :)

Hmm, if you have GPLed software that is designed to be used specifically with propietary software, are you not obliged to make sure the functionality of your work does not infringe upon the other copyright when used normally?

The source code is GPLed, and that basically allows you to do as you please with it as long as the code in it is new or also under the GPL, but when used in combination with software under a different license aren't you obliged by that copyright to make sure the intended mode of usage doesn't produce a misuse of the other software?

I'm aware that software can always breach copyrights when used in generic or unusual ways (thus software makers provide limited warranties and disclaimers), but here we are talking about the principal usage of the shareware; running the game with the commercial IWAD resources.

I mean, you could produce DOOM source code based software without the -file block for the shareware (or a similar safety method) but only if you made it noncompatible with the shareware IWAD. Not because of what the GPL does or doesn't allow, but because of the other software's copyrights.

Am I mistaken? If so, how are such matters handled?

Its nothing to do with the source code at all. The people violating the copyright are the people that play the game, not the port authors.

The copyright on doom1.wad allows id to control how it is used. You are only allowed to use doom1.wad to play doom if it is to play an unmodified game.

NiGHTMARE said:

Modifying doom1.wad is not the issue at all. The fact is that you are legally restricted from making your own Doom add-ons which work in conjunction with doom1.wad. Doing so brakes the copyright and is therefore illegal.

Actually theres nothing wrong with making or distributing doom add-ons which work with doom1.wad. You just arent allowed to run them with doom1.wad.

From id Software's stance the issue is not primarily that you can't run doom1 with PWADs, it's that you CAN run the commercial IWADs with PWADs.

The latest EULA states:
Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement and so long as you fully comply at all times with this Agreement, ID grants to you the non-exclusive and limited right to create for the Software (except any Software code) your own modifications (the "New Creations") which shall operate only with the Software (but not any demo, test or other version of the Software). ID reserves all rights not granted in this Agreement, including, without limitation, all rights to ID's trademarks. You may include within the New Creations certain textures and other images (the "ID Images") from the Software.

This is the only exception in which they acknowledge derivative works based on the contents (both resources and software structure) of their propietary software. Not being able to run PWADs is the norm, but there is an exception if you legally possess the commercial IWADs.

ravage said:

And you'd think people would be smart enough to respect Id's wishes. After all, they gave us DooM.

Actually, if we do not at this point more or less respect id's requests, copyrights and claims (since exact legal matters are very complex and we could speculate all day about them) how the hell are we going to respect each other when we release something, given that we practically have no power to stop each other from distributing or modifying each other's stuff irrespective of each author's wishes?

Plus, the state of things is not just the result of "id's wishes" or "what's legal" but of arrangements made between id and editing players, and between these players. You are also making claims over what the people that previously worked on DOOM stuff accorded when you are deciding to breach something like the "no PWADs for doom1" ruling.

fraggle said:

Actually theres nothing wrong with making or distributing doom add-ons which work with doom1.wad. You just arent allowed to run them with doom1.wad.

Maybe one might be able to defend himself from id's claims doing so... maybe not, but you sure aren't agreeing with their EULA.

You didn't really answer my question above... not that I blame you since I doubt there's a definite answer except under concrete circumstances, but to me it's obvious by what we're saying that it's at the very least unethical to release software that is made (specifically) for using id's property illegally, even though the GPL allows you to produce it.

---------------

There's another matter relating zdaemon and the shareware in addition to the proposal for a shareware-compatible PWAD and the removal of the -file block when using the shareware (all this to be aired on TV), and that's the way they are distributing the shareware IWAD.

As you will see on zdaemon.org, it's available in a ZIP or along with "the starter kit" but in both cases without any sort of specific documentation or any accompanying auxiliary files. And to think that the "starter kit" is for newbies unfamiliar with DOOM... what will they think of doom1.wad's status as software?

The zdaemon team should look into this oversight as well, I believe.

Oh, and one thing that I'd like to see on the zdaemon page is the source code package, since it's under the GPL. I urge users to demand it, since not even the older source code packages are clearly available anywhere on the site... I see no link to it at all. The best thing I found is the 1.02 source (although there's the 1.03 for FreeBSD Lyfe uses for his servers as well), but on Lyfe's page, not the project's page. I'm familiar with the fact that sometimes developers take a couple of days to clean up the code for a source release, but the lack of releases since 1.02 has made me curious...

Here's Lyfe's DOOM files page for those who'd like to see the latest released code:

http://getsomewhere.net/?dep=doom&pg=files

The 1.04 source code is already on zdaemon.org. It's been in the download area all along. I haven't completed all the website updates that will provide links to each package, but they are all there.

Until just a few days ago, there were links to the 1.03 source code right on the front page of zdaemon.org. The only reason they aren't there now is because I'm not done porting, packaging and updating the website. I need to package binaries and source for the win32 server, win32 client and linux server.

For the record, there has never been a moment in time where the source for a released version was unavailable. There is certainly sufficient contact information available on the website for any person interested in obtaining the source to be able to easily request it. When I get the time, there will be links for each package.

myk said:
Oh, and one thing that I'd like to see on the zdaemon page is the source code package, since it's under the GPL. I urge users to demand it, since not even the older source code packages are clearly available anywhere on the site... I see no link to it at all. The best thing I found is the 1.02 source (although there's the 1.03 for FreeBSD Lyfe uses for his servers as well), but on Lyfe's page, not the project's page. I'm familiar with the fact that sometimes developers take a couple of days to clean up the code for a source release, but the lack of releases since 1.02 has made me curious...

Here's Lyfe's DOOM files page for those who'd like to see the latest released code:

http://getsomewhere.net/?dep=doom&pg=files [/B]

I'm going to be a bit anal here, since this has begun to involve me. According to GPL, I am not obligated to provide sources to binaries I have am not the creator of online. However, being that I am distributing the binary, it is my understanding that I am required by the GPL to make a mail-order copy of the source available upon request. (I suggest that anyone looking to take me up on this reads the GPL.)

In addition, the readme enclosed with the binary does point out where the official site is, and as Raider has pointed out, the sources for the binary I have mirrored are available, although a little hunting may be in order.

As for the old sources I have available on my page, they are no longer available in binary form except as archives. If you are not distributing a binary under GPL, there is no reason why you would ever need to make the accompanying sources available either. Your assumption that the current sources are not available based on the fact that I have not made them available (yet) on my site is a poor assumption, and merely shows that you have not done your homework on the matter.
If you wish to assume that the freebsd versions that I use on my servers vary from the code which is used by the main zdaemon project, this is not completely true. While I do vary slightly every now and then on the code I run, I am not distributing binaries of that code, nor the source. At current, all changes I have made to the servers on my system have been sent back to the main zdaemon project, and at this point, have been incorporated into the project itself.
If any of this sounds fuzzy, it's because my mind is slipping while finishing this up.

By the way, next time you urge users to demand some already-available source, could you urge them to help with the project too? ;)

Lyfe, don't take my mention of your site as a critique, but as credit for making zdaemon sources readily available. Plus, my posting what I did find does help any people browsing for the sources, people that, in turn, may be interested in helping out, particularly if they have something to work with.

I do understand, as I mentioned above, that time restraints and other pursuits often do make instant or prompt availability of the source less possible. Yet publicly asking for a GPL source is by no means unusual, nor do I think I did so forcefully.

myk said:

There's another matter relating zdaemon and the shareware in addition to the proposal for a shareware-compatible PWAD and the removal of the -file block when using the shareware (all this to be aired on TV), and that's the way they are distributing the shareware IWAD.

As you will see on zdaemon.org, it's available in a ZIP or along with "the starter kit" but in both cases without any sort of specific documentation or any accompanying auxiliary files. And to think that the "starter kit" is for newbies unfamiliar with DOOM... what will they think of doom1.wad's status as software?

Interestingly, Doomworld.com is equally as guilty as Zdaemon.org in the way they have exploited the doom1.wad for their own personal gain. If you follow this link:
http://www.doomworld.com/classicdoom/info/shareware.php
you will find that the shareware doom1.wad is available for download with absolutely no accompanying documentation. I’m looking forward to reading Myk’s expression of outrage as he submits his scathing response.

Just to set the record straight, I intend to provide appropriate credit and documentation to be included in any package containing the shareware wad.

Raider said:

Interestingly, Doomworld.com is equally as guilty as Zdaemon.org in the way they have exploited the doom1.wad for their own personal gain. If you follow this link:
http://www.doomworld.com/classicdoom/info/shareware.php
you will find that the shareware doom1.wad is available for download with absolutely no accompanying documentation.

Almost. They should certainly package it along with the documentation, but unlike the zdaemon team they are not directly encouraging people to misuse it.

Raider said:

I’m looking forward to reading Myk’s expression of outrage as he submits his scathing response.

Scathing how? I might be crazy, but it seems to me my posts were quite polite. They were indeed clear and to the point... but scathing? May it be, perchance, that the facts are scathing to you, and not my posts themselves?

Raider said:

Just to set the record straight, I intend to provide appropriate credit and documentation to be included in any package containing the shareware wad.

Not bad. That's a start.

I don't get why there's all this argument here...

I thought it was common knowledge that you're not permitted to play pwads with DooM shareware? As I recall some of the earliest versions of DooM allowed you to do it, but Id took it out later on.

Sorry, you're right, I didnt really answer your question.

myk said:

Hmm, if you have GPLed software that is designed to be used specifically with propietary software, are you not obliged to make sure the functionality of your work does not infringe upon the other copyright when used normally?

No, you arent.