Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
Bloodshedder

Free at Last

Recommended Posts

fraggle has asked us to point out the release of version 0.1 of Freedoom. The official announcement was made in the Freedoom forum in this thread, and you'll find the download at SourceForge here. And further:

It's been pointed out that "0.1" makes it sound like we've got almost nowhere. The version number isn't meant to represent anything quantitative; it's just a good initial release version :)

Share this post


Link to post

this is all lies constructed by the american media! there is no 'free doom', praise allah!

Share this post


Link to post
Scragadelic said:

So yeah, 0.1 is a good initial release version. But er, why hasn't it been marked as alpha or beta? Is it actually considered a serious first release?


Heh, I don't think it's necessary to emphasize it as a test release when the version number is 0.1.

Scragadelic said:

Well, in any case I wanted to put my twelve dollars in about the music. Music is the fourth dimension to DOOM and makes up about 20% of the game's ambience. With what's there I was getting maybe 6%. But I went through all the maps and jotted down comments for the ones that somewhat gained my attention within the first 30 - 45 seconds.


I agree with what you say about DOOM's music (although I'd give it more than 20%) but Freedoom isn't DOOM. It's hard to give a definite theme to something made by so many hands... you just can't, really. And I do not think that Freedoom should necessarily aim for DOOM's mood and theme... again it's impossible, and also probably inadvisable.

Actually, I would suggest different names for the Freedoom maps, in any case limited by DeHackEd's maximum string lengths, for a broader engine compatibility. You could also include new texts, if but to give the project some type of general aesthetic aim with an accompanying story. I've heard arguments about it being OK to use the map names because they appear in the source code which is GPL compliant. Is this so? They are also in the IWADs. Wasn't there a problem with using the monster names due to the fact that they are trademarks of id... when actually they also appear in the code (but unlike the map names, they do not appear directly spelled out in the IWADs as graphic resources)? Does the appearance in text form of a name or trademark in a GPL code put its copyright in question? Would this mean that a GPLed source code can't mention things like Coca-Cola (or whatever) anywhere within it? But possible legal issues aside, and acknowledging all the hard work done, I do believe that a more DOOM-independent Freedoom is more commendable and ethical than one that aims at being compatible with things that are geared at id's game (either add-ons or specifics pertaining to id's game within the source code.)

Just my two cents... unfortunately I'm not as rich as Scragadelic, but I think I can afford to offer another coin or two later, if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Scragadelic said:

So yeah, 0.1 is a good initial release version. But er, why hasn't it been marked as alpha or beta? Is it actually considered a serious first release?

Its a convention for version numbers 0.x to imply that the package is an alpha or beta.

Share this post


Link to post

If each type of resource was done in turn, Freedoom would take something like 20 years to finish.

Anway, IMHO most of the Freedoom textures do fit in well with the existing levels.

Share this post


Link to post

Scragadelic, you obviously don't understand what freedoom is about: building a Free IWAD which can be packaged with a GPL Doom exe, and thus have a totally free and complete Doom game.

It isn't about recreating a Doom ambience, though that would be nice. Feel free to contribute where you think you can.

It isn't about having a good story, or having good levels, though they would be nice. Feel free to contribute where you think you can.

As for the level names, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems there are no graphics which cite the map names. Thus a distribution of the Freedoom could not possibly violate any trademark or copyright, notwithstanding my severe doubts that a trademark would stand up (through dilution) or a copyright (through GPL redistribution permissions on the code which contains the code).

Share this post


Link to post
aurikan said:

Scragadelic, you obviously don't understand what freedoom is about : building a Free IWAD which can be packaged with a GPL Doom exe, and thus have a totally free and complete Doom game.

It isn't about recreating a Doom ambience, though that would be nice. Feel free to contribute where you think you can.

It isn't about having a good story, or having good levels, though they would be nice. Feel free to contribute where you think you can.


What's obvious to me is that Freedoom as it is presently isn't exactly what Carmack gave an OK to in his email to fraggle, from what I see in the quotes of Carmack's email that fraggle gave on other threads. He said a completely different game using the source code was cool. But this is a functional clone of the game, with nothing but random cosmetic changes, aimed exclusively at claiming the large add-on pool made for id's games.

I find the idea of an open and free GPL compatible DOOM source code based game quite laudable and undoubtably worthy, but it should also at least aim at being something in itself, with its own (vague due to the nature of the project) guiding aesthetic theme and its own particular set of add-ons.

It should have a future of its own and should not be adapting to DOOM's form and accessories. The former is recommended (given source engines' customizability) and the latter is questionable.

As for contributing, that is what I'm doing. At this opportune moment I'm giving this critique, since the project is still at an early stage, and while its resources are indeed fine there is still time to rearrange and rename them in order to aim for a more independent game form.

Freedoom can easily come with its own embedded DEH or BEX patch for customizations, and other source engine compatible hack formats can be made available or included for other engines (DED for jdoom, DDF for EDGE, and even other yet non-exstent formats in the future.) Designers could even make slight frame and code pointer changes if it suits the development of a particular resource (the admins making sure everything works fine.) The fact that source mods were made with DOOM and DOOM II in mind does not imply that you have to make a blatant DOOM emulation when making a source code based game, due to the high level of customization possible.

I can't exactly contribute with specific resources at the moment due to the fact that I don't agree with the present project aims.

As a matter of fact I would urge anyone to think twice and reconsider before contributing under the present conditions. Even Linux distros and other GPL package distributors should be entitiled to doubts whether it's convenient to include such a product, if it's developed further along these lines.

aurikan said:

As for the level names, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems there are no graphics which cite the map names. Thus a distribution of the Freedoom could not possibly violate any trademark or copyright, notwithstanding my severe doubts that a trademark would stand up (through dilution) or a copyright (through GPL redistribution permissions on the code which contains the code).


The WILV** and CWILV** lumps contain graphics for the level names. You may be right about possibly being able to do this without effective legal restraint, but you might be giving the GPL too much weight, and I'm not sure this kind of use (of the GPL) is good for the GPL itself or its spirit.

Share this post


Link to post

>> The WILV** and CWILV** lumps contain graphics for the level names.

Upon referencing the FreeDoom resources, it is clear that the .wad infringes no copyright or trademark, as the WILV?? and CWILV?? lumps contain generic names such as "E1M1" or "MAP30".

As for the legality of the project:
The only doom resources remaining under a non-Free license are the resources contained in the wad file: that is, levels, art, sound, music, et cetera. Replace these with non-derivative, Free supplements and doom will be freely distributable, with the engine under the GPL and the resources under the Artistic License.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, I see... that seems to mean that the original map names will not be used for the project (assuming these are fillers.)

The main potential legal problems would not stem from the nature of each lump (since this has been taken care of effectively), but from the fact that the new IWAD would be intentionally and functionally a duplicate object of id's, occupying exactly the same economic niche, thus damaging their business (of which the accompanying PWADs are an important part.) Plus I can't see how it's not a derivative work, since the authors made it constantly and carefully referencing the original work in order to achieve the desired effect (structural equalness, aside from the cosmetic changes.)

It would be possible, I assume, to create an IWAD from the source code only, but then, at the very least, the patches and textures would be named differently. They are independent of the code (instead stemming from PNAMES and TEXTURE1) and, in this case, should certainly be distinct from DOOM II's. And could include a different number of patches and textures altogether.

As I see it the problem here is the IWAD as a whole, not the parts. That exact IWAD format belongs to DOOM II. If you change the lump names you make it different from DOOM II and incompatible with its add-ons, thus gearing away from any conflicts with id Software. As a plus, in addition to legal safety which also generates trust in the project from potential contributors and distributors, you get more creative freedom, as there is no need to adjust the new IWAD to the original one, or to all those existing DOOM add-ons.

Note also that the new IWAD would be available to all sorts of people, not just dedicated DOOM players. This means that you don't have to follow id's lump naming conventions, and can choose ones more representative of Freedoom's particular lumps and you have the liberty to name the resources in user-friendly (organized) ways. This renaming is also what generates the incompatibility with propietary and derivative DOOM stuff.

Such a different project would maybe evolve a bit slower, but it would have the potential to be much more professional and consistent than a mere clone of DOOM II (which will often naturally bring up comparisions with the original, like the ones Scragadelic posted above.)

If such a task were undertaken it would probably be better to take it easy, filing the four episode IWAD format aside for a future project (that might even have vastly different resources), concentrating on the "megawad" format till it's done. After all, you would not need both IWADs so eagerly, as the object would not be to claim the DOOM PWADs, but to make a new totally free and openly editable game.

Share this post


Link to post

So far I think Map18's the courtyard is the best laid out level.
Though one gripe with FreeDoom is the pain sound the player makes.
From the mug, he should make a deeper sound.

Share this post


Link to post

Fortunately, the IWAD is a simple chunk-based file format that is not patented (and remember you can't copyright a mechanism). None of the file formats used in the IWAD file format are patented. Furthermore the nomenclature and positioning of chunks the IWAD file can be inferred strictly from the GPL source code. I would doubt seriously lump names would qualify for copyright.

The reference art issue is real, however. I believe that using the doom art as reference is OK -- its practically standard in the industry to use copyright materials such as movie clips, pictures, posters, etc as a reference point. The idea is that you are not creating a copy of what you reference, but rather using it to guide the theme of your creation. This is however a valid point of contention.

The economic impact argument has no bearing unless the point above is sufficient to claim damages. Economic impact of itself is not sufficient, and is merely an aggravating factor. Nevertheless I believe the economic impact to be positive, as certainly Doom engine-based income must be near-nil, and the distribution of id's game in a totally free manner is excellent advertising.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

The main potential legal problems would not stem from the nature of each lump (since this has been taken care of effectively), but from the fact that the new IWAD would be intentionally and functionally a duplicate object of id's, occupying exactly the same economic niche, thus damaging their business (of which the accompanying PWADs are an important part.) Plus I can't see how it's not a derivative work, since the authors made it constantly and carefully referencing the original work in order to achieve the desired effect (structural equalness, aside from the cosmetic changes.)

So what are you saying? You think id are going to sue because the freedoom textures have the same names as the original doom? I think these would probably fall under "fair use" and I certainly doubt you could base any kind of lawsuit on it.

I think of it as being equivalent to a programming API: in programming libraries you typically have a set of functions, each with a name. You then write your program calling these functions. Its the same with doom: you make levels that use a set of textures (in this case, the doom textures), each of which has a name. There are plenty of examples of projects that produce compatible free versions of proprietory libraries: Wine immediately springs to mind as an implementation of the Windows API. I dont see that freedoom is really that much different.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

So what are you saying? You think id are going to sue because the freedoom textures have the same names as the original doom?


It's not just that you use the texture names, but also the size and alignment specifications, as well as a relatively similar appearance... aiming to achieve a clone capable of running DOOM add-ons.

This isn't the only possiblity for a DOOM source code based game. You have:

A) A clone with cosmetic changes, to run as much as possible like DOOM, even using its add-ons. Which is what Freedoom is becoming.

B) A game adapted to existing engines (prboom, zdoom, EDGE, and so on) but aiming to be a game on its own right, but possibly very similar to DOOM. I mean, it could have DOOMs gameplay but with its own set of resources (in the structural sense, they are in all cases original... but as I mentioned greater design freedom would help to choose a theme better) and add-ons.

C) A game that uses its own resources and has a custom DOOM source code based engine. This would be the most customizable and possibly powerful choice, but the most innovative (would take more work and be more experimental.)

As I mentioned above, Carmack did say completely different game in his email. I don't think he said it in vain. I'm not sure your API analogy would work, nor if they would sue you or anything, but I don't think that the direction of a project should be determined simply by whether it's legal or not. It might be legally possible to clone id's IWAD to allow PWADs to be played for free, but is it worth it? And is it OK for you to decide that those PWADs that the thousands of authors created for use with DOOM or DOOM II (in arrangement with id) should be usable with some other hotch-potch set of resources the authors of the PWADs never made the maps for?

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
×