Baron of Hell
Register | User Profile | Member List | F.A.Q | Privacy Policy | New Blog | Search Forums | Forums Home
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Special Interest > Freedoom > Legality
 
Author
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:03. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
cph
Junior Member


Posts: 208
Registered: 05-00


First, I think it will help if we leave the other threads for practical discussions and put all the legal wrangling in its own threads, such as this.


IOW, that implies (from your pov) you can't use even "simulated" imps, cyber demons, BFGs etc. It's a factyou are going to have exactly those elements in FREEDOOM.


The code that drives the AI and physics of the Doom monsters is GPL'd so we're free to use it, regardless of Carmack's comments. He is correct that we can't use or try to emulate the monster graphics.


Now it's pretty obvious that is again just not so. For one thing, that's been going on for literally years - sprite replacements for same. ID allowing that togo on for all that time, basically denies them any right to complain now since this can for all practical purposes be considered a giant PWAD


No. PWADs are designed to work with the IWAD. When id legitimised level editing back in, what, '93, they did so on condition the WADs worked only with the registered or commercial Doom games. So we are not just another PWAD.


Let's to an even simpler example, the textures. Clearly everyone also believes those are not a problem.


For the record I believe they are a problem, and argued so on IRC when the project was formed. I argued for a much more cautious approach, with a different palette, textures names and everything, but was overruled as paranoid (which I am ;-).


The bottom line is this - either Id cares about you releasing an IWAD that is compatible with (and a replacement for) DOOMII or they don't. Nothing else matters.


With the exception that trademarks are different to copyright, they lose strength if not defended, so id would be compelled to defend the Doom trademark in any case. Apart from that I agree, in other areas the project is on some risky ground but provided id don't care then we're OK. Everything is up for discussion with id except for the trademark issued, IMHNALO.

Old Post 09-21-01 09:56 #
cph is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
deep
as in Deepsea


Posts: 1066
Registered: 09-01



The code ... is GPL'd so we're free to use it, regardless of Carmack's comments. He is correct that we can't use or try to emulate the monster graphics.
I never talked about the code, ONLY the graphics. Repixelating the graphics to make a "new" imp is what the subject is. And indeed you are "emulating" the monster graphics by offering "replacements" for same. Look up -emulate- on dictionary.com for reference. Did you unintentionally(?) talk yourself out of being able to do sprites?

No. PWADs are designed to work with the IWAD. When id legitimised level editing back in, what, '93
First off, they had NO CONTROL over level editing, since the copyright of the editors was NOT theirs to control. They knew that and then spun it around as if they were ok with it. There was nothing they could have done about it, all smoke and mirrors - LOL. I even sent a copy to Romero back then - no problem.

Secondly, if I made a PWAD with exactly the same elements as the "IWAD" then it will "replace" the IWAD. The key is the CONTENT, not some technical quibble over P vs I, that's what the legal aspects are about - content.

For the record I believe they are a problem, and argued so on IRC when the project was formed. I argued for a much more cautious approach, with a different palette, textures names and everything...
Well, as far as the content/drawing of a texture, that is 100% safe. No need to worry. Any -original- art is safe. The palette is not a problem, but the corresponding COLORMAP could be.

I KNOW the palette is not an issue since I published CD QUAKE levels using their palette and I even had an exchange with id's legal on putting replacement textures in existing BSPs. They would have said something if they thought they could:)

The COLORMAP is more interesting. Could be it falls into the same thing as the palette. Changing a "few" numbers is not enough to overcome a copyright problem. That's like recoloring a graphic - which also violates a copyright because the issue is pixel placement, not color.

With the exception that trademarks are different to copyright
I already explained this. A "mark" is very specific. FREEDOOM and DOOM are just not the SAME. Doom is an ENGLISH word and you cannot trademark a common word as a word and exclude it from use in other trademarks or for that matter a common saying.

Look at the history of the DOOM trademark and see how they got rejected:

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=74338782

Pure money at work here. They finally got someone who for whatever reason let it get by. Btw, I believe they trademarked the Logo DOOM in graphics words, not the words per se.

Here's an example I was involved in: A company wanted to trademark "Here's Help" and "Unleash the Power". They failed. And they didn't want to spend any more money.

QUAKE has similar problems, since it's a common word too. Look at the number of "marks" that have QUAKE - each is a different "logo of letters".

Now, if DOOM is such a precious "trademark" that can't be combined with other words, how do ZDOOM, JDOOM and all those other ports manage to do that?

From the "not defend" pov, then they have lost it before they began. From that I conclude id doesn't care about FREEDOOM (the name), since that is distinctly different from DOOM, DOOM II, FINAL DOOM and DOOM III (even assuming we are discussing "words" and not "marks"). Id might care about the total content though:)

One needs to give supporting evidence in a debate, not just "opinion" - IOW give factual background.

A trademark is very specific and not global as some seem to think. Many trademarks have "parts of" other trademark names. Like I said before, if it was not that way pretty soon nothing would be left.

I've given examples showing that word combinations are legit, even if they include "part of" a trademarked word. So I could make a game called DOOMCITY and it would be safe.

Btw, how many levels use the word DOOM? Another interesting example of how (using the "defense" argument) they let that slide by for all these years. But they didn't really let it slide by. The reason they exist is that they don't infringe on the trademark DOOM (as submitted), e.g. DOOM3057.

P.S. if you still want to argue "PWAD", then make it a PWAD and write a little proggie than makes the I a P<g>. Not even sure if DOOM cares, need to check that out.

Old Post 09-21-01 19:14 #
deep is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
geekmarine
Senior Member


Posts: 1558
Registered: 05-00


You know, at this point, I'm more worried about arguments over legal issues ruining this great project than the legal issues themselves. I personally don't know too much about law, but I do believe that it's entirely okay to release our own independent IWAD, as long as it contains no resources from the original. I don't know, but I think it's okay to have the original names, though. I mean, first of all, there really wouldn't be a point to having an IWAD which no current source port can run, and furthermore, who on earth would copyright things such as TROO, AASHITTY, STARTAN3, DSSLOP, D_RUNNIN, COLORMAP... ect. I say just work on the project, and if we really need to know, we should e-mail John Carmack and ask for his opinion on the matter. But, like I said, I have no clue about how the law works, so I'll just shut up now.

Old Post 09-21-01 22:33 #
geekmarine is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
cph
Junior Member


Posts: 208
Registered: 05-00



I never talked about the code, ONLY the graphics. Repixelating the graphics to make a "new" imp is what the subject is.


You mentioned monster names, those are in the code; I was explaining why I think we're OK with those. And I totally agree repixellating existing graphics would clearly be a copyright breach, not sure where that came from.


First off, they had NO CONTROL over level editing, since the copyright of the editors was NOT theirs to control. They knew that and then spun it around as if they were ok with it.


I've heard from other sources that Doom levels fall into the class of , um, I think the term was "fanac" material, which can be legally held to be under control of the makers of the original product. See http://groups.google.com/groups?q=r...40earthlink.net, now haven't investigated this myself, but it's food for thought.


I KNOW the palette is not an issue since I published CD QUAKE levels using their palette and I even had an exchange with id's legal...


That's good to know, this had worried me.


The COLORMAP is more interesting.


Our colormap is OK, I made ours from scratch. Easy.


Now, if DOOM is such a precious "trademark" that can't be combined with other words, how do ZDOOM, JDOOM and all those other ports manage to do that? From the "not defend" pov, then they have lost it before they began.


Doom ports aren't complete replacement products, are don't degrade the value of id's product more than they did themselves with the source release. Doomworld, which you mentioned previously, is clearly not a rival to Doom the game, so is also in the clear.

But I think you may be right... does the fact that id have allowed all the projects to use the Doom name mean that their trademark is effectively lapsed as far as original Doom goes? Admitedly a lot of the ports do carry a trademark acknowledgement in the docs, but id certainly aren't going around checking. Perhaps we're OK after all.

Old Post 09-22-01 16:15 #
cph is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
deep
as in Deepsea


Posts: 1066
Registered: 09-01



You mentioned monster names, those are in the code;
Without going back, I believe I was alluding to "copyright" issues with "names", sort of teasing actually:) The code becomes relevant only if you think the lump names are "copyrightable" as a whole.

The concern was "emulation" though. Are the new sprites "emulating" the game or not? Is that a problem considering the stuff Carmack wrote? FREEDOOM's goal is to work with stock DOOM2.

I've heard from other sources that Doom levels fall into the class of..
That kind of comment falls 100% into a legal class called hearsay - leading to a nonproductive discussion. (Psss, I heard that ...)

If I make an original level, they can't touch it. Copyright laws prevent that from ever happening. (Ignoring for now license agreements that can control an author -if- they are legal)

Besides, it's prima facie evidence from the DOOM levels published on CDs that is just not true. The only issue that ever came up is using Copyrighted images on the boxes - a different issue.

The key word is "copyrighted". Don't use those and all better. But "fans" tend to do that - bad fans.

Our colormap is OK, I made ours from scratch. Easy.
I assume it doesn't have the same byte values. Not so simple as that though. Remember what I wrote about "coloring" an image. Just changing the values is not 100% safe (to just make you think about this). Technically, a "colorized" image is different from the original image (in terms of byte values), yet one is still bound by copyright laws. You can also try to distort it and yet you are still stuck with the copyright issue - although it would be harder to prove:)

Doom ports aren't complete replacement products, are don't degrade the value of id's product more than they did themselves with the source release.
Not relevant to the trademark name, however, you supported my main point. By admitting you "degrade the value" you bring up the one and only thing that id will care about. Are they making money from the old IWAD?

Aside from that, a name is a name is a name: EXE, IWAD, PWAD, doesn't matter - all related to the same game.

Try calling an EXE CocaColaDOOM - do you think that's ok?It's not even a drink is it? Cola is a regular word, so JackColaDOOM is ok. See how I can use Cola just fine. It's the total package of word(s) that count.

DOOMWORLD is a digression - although interesting. The main flaw is assuming DOOMwhatever is a trademark violation. It's not (but cyberwise is ?).


does the fact that id have allowed all the projects to use the Doom name mean that their trademark is effectively lapsed as far as original Doom goes?
NO. The logo "mark" DOOM is 100% valid. You still can't use that. You assume those projects were violating a trademark, I keep explaining why they were not. If they were, trust me, the lawyers would be all over there asses. Especially with DOOM III coming up.

So again, the evidence is right in front of everyone to see. They would NOT let all this DOOMxxx stuff in the form of levels, execs and who knows what go on IF there was any way it was enforcable.

Trademarks are very specific. Common words cannot be controlled. "Marks" can be, those are LOGOS, Graphics and the like. If you look, you'll see that DOOM is trademarked multiple times. That alone should have been enough to convince anyone.

The trademark acknowledgement in material is for DOOM and only DOOM, not DOOMwhatever. In the many books published for DOOM, why do they list DOOM and DOOM II separately. Seems just saying DOOM would cover both? Obviously DOOM and DOOM II are distinct trademarks.

Perhaps we're OK after all.
Do you think? I find no problem with using the name FREEDOOM.

However, the contents of the IWAD is a totally different thing. The concentration of concern should be on that and only that. Does id care if you publish this IWAD/PWAD?

There is a way around the de facto problem, but let's see if everyone realizes what needs to be done.

Old Post 09-22-01 18:51 #
deep is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
geekmarine
Senior Member


Posts: 1558
Registered: 05-00


I still don't see what all the big stink is about. This is what we know at this point: John Carmack said we could design a freely distributed IWAD for Doom as long as we replaced all the resources with our own work and did not use things like Imps or Cyberdemons. There is the issue of the name Doom, but that is easily solved by just not using the word Doom, if you people are so concerned over it, or better yet, asking John Carmack about whether or not we can use Doom as part of the name. As for "emulating", the only copyright violations we've got to worry about right now are a couple of sprites and some textures. The monsters are all completely different from the originals, and most of the textures are basically the same theme, but interpreted differently. Id software can't copyright such vague concepts as "a red brick wall" or "a monster that walks around and throws fireballs", so I don't see what the problem is, as long as they don't look too much like their original counterparts. Basically, what you guys are doing is saying that while John Carmack gave us permission to create an independent IWAD, the laws prevent us from actually replacing the data in that IWAD, or that replacing it isn't good enough? I'm really confused as far as this goes, and things like the colormap, the only thing we can do to change it is alter the values, so what is the problem with it? By allowing us to make an IWAD, I'm assuming John Carmack is allowing it to be compatible with Doom, because if not, I don't see any point in asking in the first place. People, maybe we should quit over-analyzing everything and just work on the project instead, okay? Sorry for getting all upset, but these legal isssues are driving me bonkers.

Old Post 09-22-01 19:23 #
geekmarine is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
deep
as in Deepsea


Posts: 1066
Registered: 09-01


The exposing of much more serious questions than the "name" was just to make everyone think (as they tried to argue why DOOMxxxx couldn't be used).

I really don't think there's much of a problem with the contents, mainly because all this has been done before, just in bits and pieces. IOW there was a precedence set that went on uncontested for too many years. And one can take that argument with the name too (even though FREEDOOM is a safe name).

So I totally agree - just ask John to explain exactly what he means by the Imp, etc statement, said that right up front:)

IOW, say, "Hey John, we replaced the Imp, etc. sprite graphics with all new ones and is that ok?" The way he worded it was ambiguous.

I sense that everyone would like to have the project name be FREEDOOM. Someone "feared" that name would not be ok, but had no facts to base that fear on. Using "fear" to make a decision is not a good idea.

So get off the pot and ask John:)

Old Post 09-22-01 21:35 #
deep is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
cph
Junior Member


Posts: 208
Registered: 05-00



I still don't see what all the big stink is about. This is what we know at this point: John Carmack said we could design a freely distributed IWAD for Doom as long as we replaced all the resources with our own work and did not use things like Imps or Cyberdemons.


No, he said that if we made our own IWAD then it couldn't use original resources and would need its own monsters etc. He didn't say it would be OK provided we did that, he said it would not be OK if we didn't. It's a bit worrying that some contributors have taken this attitude.


There is the issue of the name Doom, but that is easily solved by just not using the word Doom,


This is the position myself and fraggle took. We're arguing the finer points here of whether it might be OK to use Doom as part of the name. We're still most likely to play safe and not do so.

Please stop moaning about let's-get-on-with-the-project, we are getting on with it, but at the same time we will need to choose a name, and like all the other work it goes on in parallel with other activities.

Old Post 09-23-01 11:52 #
cph is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
cph
Junior Member


Posts: 208
Registered: 05-00


I'll end the discussion on legality of Doom PWADs. There is some doubt over what degree of control id might have over these, because they're set in the Doom universe. But it's not relevant to FreeDoom, because FreeDoom isn't. It was only raised because it may weaken the legal precedent set by id's allowing pwads, but it's not at all relevant to FreeDoom itself.

BTW, I am playing devil's advocate here, so chill everyone.



Our colormap is OK, I made ours from scratch. Easy.
I assume it doesn't have the same byte values. Not so simple as that though. Remember what I wrote about "coloring" an image.


I think I've lost the thread here. Our colormap is OK, it's made from scratch, I wrote a program to generate it, the specs for the colormap are easily obtained from the Doom source which is public. The colormap is not an image, and I'm not trying to assert that a new colormap helps our images be legal. They stand on their own merits.



does the fact that id have allowed all the projects to use the Doom name mean that their trademark is effectively lapsed as far as original Doom goes?
NO. The logo "mark" DOOM is 100% valid. You still can't use that. You assume those projects were violating a trademark, I keep explaining why they were not.


Yes of course you're right. Perhaps what I'm trying to say is, that if id wanted to (or was able to) enforce rights over names like Doom, they're long since waived that right.

There is another issue with the name FreeDoom; while it's good as a pun on freedom for a legally-unrestricted iwad, it sounds like we're just trying to make a free Doom, which might not endear us to id. I can let the name back onto the list of possible project names, but it's up to fraggle whether he thinks it's a good idea.


However, the contents of the IWAD is a totally different thing. The concentration of concern should be on that and only that. Does id care if you publish this IWAD/PWAD?


Agreed that is the main concern, names are easy, content is not.

Old Post 09-23-01 12:09 #
cph is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Jon
Freedoom Bloke


Posts: 1351
Registered: 09-00


It may be true that we can legally call the project 'freedoom', but it isn't in our best interests to annoy or upset ID in any way, and if using doom in the title would potentially do that (and based on JC's comments earlier in the project, I think it would), then we should avoid it, legalities or not. The project's name may be important, but it not be made or broken based on if it has 'doom' in the title or not :)

Old Post 09-23-01 12:55 #
Jon is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
deep
as in Deepsea


Posts: 1066
Registered: 09-01



Our colormap is OK, it's made from scratch, I wrote a program to generate it, the specs for the colormap are easily obtained from the Doom source which is public.
If the byte values are the same, then it's the same. Doesn't matter how you created it or how you knew the values. Just because someone publishes the data doesn't relinquish their copyright interest. In fact, that's what copyright is all about. You can publish and still "own" the property. The colormap is an object in the iwad which was not GPLd.

The colormap is not an image, and I'm not trying to assert that a new colormap helps our images be legal.
Don't know what you meant there. Copyrights go way beyond "images". A copyright covers any original creation, including electronic combination of bits. Doesn't matter how you made it - if electronically it looks the same, then it's a "copy" and a violation of copyright law.

Again, I'm explaining how this stuff works. There are a few methods of "duplication" that are legal, but they don't involve machines. As I explained, if one handpaints something that is a "copy" of something else, you can sell that painting as original art without worrying about "copyright". In fact, the copy made in this way, is itself protected by copyright laws. Scanning it in is not legal - that is a machine duplicate.

Old Post 09-23-01 17:45 #
deep is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
deep
as in Deepsea


Posts: 1066
Registered: 09-01



it isn't in our best interests to annoy or upset ID in any way,
Fear and not knowing are political tools and not logical facts.

The above is not a rational explanation, it's just an opinion feeding on peoples fears. I've carefully explained what the problems are and the safest route to follow.

All you have to do is WRITE to id - which is suggested in any event - if in fact you really are worried about what id will do or say. End of fear syndrome.

IMO, Id won't touch the project "name" (proof: they have already demonstrated that 100's of instances in PWAD names, besides it not being a trademark issue anyway).

They "might" care about this project "emulating" the IWAD and thus they "might" loose money that someone "might" care about.

The name is hardly on the radar screen.

I asked before: what exactly would happen if they didn't like the name? NOTHING. They tell you to not use it. The worst to you is a few new graphics. Big deal.

The implication that something "bad" will occur just over a name is unfounded. Nothing could be further from how the business world operates. Been there, done that.

The name -is- important. If it wasn't why bother to even have a list to vote on? The importance of the name is pretty obvious by that very gesture.

I just don't agree with arguing from imaginative "what if's" that spawn from the imagination and basically are scare tactics, instead of objective analysis.

Write them and ask.

Old Post 09-23-01 18:04 #
deep is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Jon
Freedoom Bloke


Posts: 1351
Registered: 09-00



Fear and not knowing are political tools and not logical facts.

if ID wanted us closed down, we'd be closed down. They have more legal oomph, being a) a commercial business and therefore courts are more sympathetic, and b) rich, they can use good lawyers should they want to. I personally think that you wouldn't convince a court we were legally allowed to exist if ID tried to convince it otherwise.


IMO, Id won't touch the project "name" (proof: they have already demonstrated that 100's of instances in PWAD names, besides it not being a trademark issue anyway).

No PWAD has yet been able to run without a commercial IWAD, so ID have never had to worry about that before. due to our uniqueness, they may start enforcing.


And about the colormap thing, I'm all for discussion and the like but you seem to be purposefully trolling, why don't you look at the colormap and see for yourself that its not byte for byte identical, rather than continue posting about it here?

Old Post 09-24-01 16:46 #
Jon is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
deep
as in Deepsea


Posts: 1066
Registered: 09-01



if ID wanted us closed down, we'd be closed down.
Already answered in other thread. Scare tactic argument. Just ask them.

You presume they'd spend big money in the way you envision. Talk about bad publicity!

But let's run away with our imagination. Who exactly do they sue? There's no company to bleed. An international lawsuit at the top of my head would cost about $500,000 (being conservative here).

No PWAD has yet been able to run without a commercial IWAD, so ID have never had to worry about that before. due to our uniqueness, they may start enforcing.
First off, to repeat, who do they sue? Secondly, it's quite easy to make it "legal" in the same sense that all the other TCs are legal. THINK. If everything is kept at the original level, I doubt very much they will care.

For sure they are not going to dump much $$$ after it. They are a business and would not blow this out of proportion to what it represents to them.

And about the colormap thing, I'm all for discussion and the like but you seem to be purposefully trolling, why don't you look at the colormap and see for yourself that its not byte for byte identical, rather than continue posting about it here?
First off, I resent you resorting to a personal attack. God some of you really get me sometimes. Stop this bullshit accusation syndrome and stick to the topic.

Either I'm right or I'm not. If I'm wrong show everyone something with substance, not just imaginative thoughts.

My colormap comment was just in passing. I've looked at the colormap, I've explained the potential problem. Did you understand the similarity between this and "coloring" a bitmap? Besides, it was an academic exercise to put to rest some of these arguments. Read it again and you'll see that it was interesting to consider abstract potential problems.

Are you Trolling or just trying to cause trouble?

The reason I'm posting is that not to call it FREEDOOM for no good reason (because of lack of information) seemed like such a waste of a good name. Everyone seemed to be convinced they couldn't use that name, yet that's just not true.

Old Post 09-24-01 17:59 #
deep is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
tom
Green Marine


Posts: 34
Registered: 05-00


to be serious for a minute (heh) i personally actually would care a lot more about completing the project with id's blessing than simply following the letter of the law. deep may (or may not, i'd want a second opinion) know about the legal issues surrounding the use of the name doom and monsters or whatever but if id doesn't want us to use them, i'd rather we didn't use them.

the scenario deep is suggesting goes something like this:

freedoom: can we have an imp in our project?
id: no, you can't use the names or likenesses of the doom monsters.
freedoom: and what is your legal basis for this?
id: ermmmm.
freedoom: OK THEN WE'RE GOING TO DO IT.

no. if id don't want us to do it, we don't do it. they made the game, respect that. it's important to stay within the law but it's far far more important to stay within the spirit of what id are happy for us to do. forget the dull timewasting legal technicalities and start following the spirit instead of the letter. maybe it'll make you a better person as well.

Old Post 09-26-01 15:02 #
tom is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
deep
as in Deepsea


Posts: 1066
Registered: 09-01



the scenario deep is suggesting goes something like this:
NOPE. The scenario deep is suggesting is to ask id. Then if they say no, punt and think of something else. But one has to take the first step.

Imaginative arguments intended to cause trouble are nothing more or less than that.

Negative thinking is not in my game plan.

Step 1 - write to id. A rather easy step.

Old Post 09-26-01 15:58 #
deep is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
tom
Green Marine


Posts: 34
Registered: 05-00


in case you didnt know, fraggle already asked id before the project even started. you seem pretty oblivious to this.

Old Post 09-26-01 16:51 #
tom is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
deep
as in Deepsea


Posts: 1066
Registered: 09-01



in case you didnt know, fraggle already asked id before the project even started. you seem pretty oblivious to this.
LOL - yeah tommie up to no good again. Thanks for NOT bothering to read the posts - makes you sort of oblivious to the whole thread eh:) It's not nice trying to stir up trouble and just trolling into this thread.

He got a response that was ambiguous and not clear at all. He needs to refine his questions and get a precise answer. He never asked about FREEDOOM for example, nor did fraggle really understand what the "imp" thing was all about. Heck, that's what 1/2 the discussion is all about.

The reason I'm explaining all these points is so the letter can be written with some understanding of the questions to be resolved. You can use some of it to argue from a point of understanding to pursuade id or you can use it just from a knowledge pov.

So WRITE an EXPANDED letter to ID and get an EXPANDED explanation. Here's a topic outline:

Question 1: We named the project FREEDOOM. Are you ok with that name?

Question 2: We are making all the sprites using our own artists and will not mess with the original copyrighted images in the IWAD.

If we make all original sprites from scratch could you explain what the sprites can look like.

You mentioned "imps" before, but does that mean we can't make an original creature that has 2 legs, 2 arms, a head and so on? For example, if we make a "Troll" to replace the imp is that ok? What if we took an image like "King Kong" and used that as a model? As you can see, I'm looking for some guidance on specific parameters regards original artwork to replace all enemies.

Question 3: We are making all the textures from scratch too. Some have the same visual cues as the original textures, but all are again original images. Is there anything you can think of that we should be aware of?

Question 4: All the other resources are also being made from scratch, such as the music, sounds and levels. The levels will actually not be DOOM II compatible, but instead can be played only by one of the newer ports that support BOOM features. Is there anything else that we need to pay attention to?

Thank you for your time and kind consideration of our project.

Your groveling, grateful and humble servant,
Fraggle (copyright)

Old Post 09-26-01 21:06 #
deep is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
tom
Green Marine


Posts: 34
Registered: 05-00


carmack's original response explicitly procludes what you are suggesting, brainiac.

Old Post 09-26-01 22:22 #
tom is offline Profile || Blog || Email || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
fraggle
Filled with the code of Doom


Posts: 7464
Registered: 07-00


I dont see anything vague or ambiguous about Carmacks reply. He said "if it has imps, cyber demons, BFGs, etc, then you are treading on thin ice.", which means our enemies cannot be imps, cannot be cyberdemons etc. I dont see what there is to discuss.

Old Post 09-26-01 22:29 #
fraggle is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
Jon
Freedoom Bloke


Posts: 1351
Registered: 09-00


Care to provide us with a template letter deep?

Old Post 09-27-01 00:11 #
Jon is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
deep
as in Deepsea


Posts: 1066
Registered: 09-01



I dont see anything vague or ambiguous about Carmacks reply. He said "if it has imps, cyber demons, BFGs, etc, then you are treading on thin ice.", which means our enemies cannot be imps, cannot be cyberdemons etc. I dont see what there is to discuss.
Sorry, but in light of what YOU people think it means, it's quite ambiguous and vague.

You seem to think that you can't take ORIGINAL art with a head, 2 arms, 2 legs and something to glue it together. As I've stated already, if the arguments presented here are true then you can't use the "chaingun" you have now. It's the "same" weapon, "acts" the same, blah blah.

Look at the quote you gave me "BFGs, etc". Methinks "etc" includes the weapons. So (using your own arguments) that goes for your "pistol", "shotgun", etc.

Or please explain why that's ok or why that doesn't violate the "letter" as you appear to interpret it? Consistency counts in a logical debate.

Imaginations do not make for a FACTUAL reason. Especially when they are clearly contradictory as imaginations tend to be.

Why don't you guys show me how (by showing counter ACTUAL examples) how my examples are wrong? Let's start with the cats and mice in movies:)

PS: ("braniac" tommie - is clearly out here just for flame attention, so I'm must going to ignore him if you don't mind<g>)

Old Post 09-29-01 15:45 #
deep is offline Profile || Blog || PM || Email || Homepage || Search || Add Buddy IP || Edit/Delete || Quote
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:03. Post New Thread    Post A Reply
 
Doomworld Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.5 Doomworld Forums > Special Interest > Freedoom > Legality

Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to this Thread

 

Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are OFF
[IMG] code is ON
 

< Contact Us - Doomworld >

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.5
Copyright ©2000, 2001, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.