BadDOOM 0.0.1 :-)

http://badsector.demoscene.gr/?section=doom




A small port of the original linux source code that i made to SDL. Currently runs under Windows and Linux (without the need of a sound server, but i have misconfigured kernel 2.6.7 and i don't have sound right now to check how it sounds).

Windows version includes a launcher.

This version allows shareware modification (i think that it is not neccessary anymore to not allow shareware mods - but if anyone disagrees, the sources are there and that part is just included in a #if 0 - #endif...)

Comments? :-)

Bad Sector said:
This version allows shareware modification (i think that it is not neccessary anymore to not allow shareware mods - but if anyone disagrees, the sources are there and that part is just included in a #if 0 - #endif...)

Nothing has changed that would make modifications that work with the shareware okay. id still offers the shareware for free and the full games for a price; thus you get add-on wads for the commercial (or registered) games, but not for the free shareware. The release of the source code, or even a version of it licensed under the GPL, does not change this, because the wads go by their own license and copyright.

myk said:

Nothing has changed that would make modifications that work with the shareware okay. id still offers the shareware for free and the full games for a price; thus you get add-on wads for the commercial (or registered) games, but not for the free shareware. The release of the source code, or even a version of it licensed under the GPL, does not change this, because the wads go by their own license and copyright.

I don't distribute the shareware WADs, i just removed the shareware check :-). I agree (and know) that the WADs have their own license, but the Shareware WADs doesn't say anywhere that you cannot use them with new levels. It just say (from README.TXT found in doom19s.zip) "id Software respectfully requests that you do not modify the
levels for the shareware version of DOOM.". This, while it asks to not make levels for the SW WADs, doesn't forbid them. That's ok, but now 11 years after the DOOM 1 SW, i don't think that ID will lose anything by that.

And leveing that "open", doesn't add much. DOOM 1 SW gives very few resources for map makers.

However as i said, the sources are there and if you want it closed, just modify the #if 0 to #if 1 in the d_main.c (IIRC). Personally i prefer it open.

Not accepting id's request (like everyone else has done and still does) is a sign of lameness. It's not an individual matter, it's a community issue.

Someone respectfully requests something and you do otherwise? Way to go. As for the 11 years that have passed... that's the kind of thing warez kiddies come up with to say "DOOM is abandonware."

Not accepting id's request (like everyone else has done and still does) is a sign of lameness. It's not an individual matter, it's a community issue.

I totally agree.

Someone respectfully requests something and you do otherwise? Way to go.

Id's request on not making levels based on the shareware WADs doesn't have anything (or much) to do with lettings users to use levels based on them.

I just gave the users the "option" to use levels based on shareware WADs. I didn't made any such level, breaking Id's request.

Id requested -respectfully- from level authors to not base their levels on the shareware WADs and that's ok. However the original DOOM binaries and many source ports doesn't allow users to do the opposite: make levels based on the shareware WADs.

Users which make levels based on the shareware WADs may be lamers (or just may want to make a E1 themed map) but that's their choice.

Requesting from someone to not do something that cannot be done anyway, cancels the request itself. The request gains value when one can do it.

So i think that letting users and modmakers to use the shareware version of WADs, gives them the option to be lamers.

As for the 11 years that have passed... that's the kind of thing warez kiddies come up with to say "DOOM is abandonware."

DOOM is not abandoned (even if DOOM 1 has been removed from id's page), so it isn't abandoneware. It's just "old".

And abandonware games are not bad. It lets gamers to play games that are not available in stores any more.

Bad Sector said:
Requesting from someone to not do something that cannot be done anyway, cancels the request itself. The request gains value when one can do it.

It only means that you as a coder have waived the request by allowing wad-makers to make add-ons that work with the shareware. The only thing that "gains value" here is that people can ignore the request; unless the request is not supported by users (including coders, of course), things won't work out... the request effectively loses value if you make an effort so people can ignore it.

So i think that letting users and modmakers to use the shareware version of WADs, gives them the option to be lamers.

The misuse of an offered source code and its license certainly is lame. You're just using cheap rhetoric to say "yes, I'm ignoring their request and washing my hands, I'm not responsible." The fact that engines don't allow shareware PWADs is pivotal for their inexistence. The material conditions of things determine what happens, not wishful thinking... once you change those conditions, you're the one responsible for the results of the change.

One buys a gun and he leaves it to a table in his home and leaves. A friend of him takes the gun, puts a bullet inside and goes out to ask his friend for a target to practice shooting. Then the second guy's child comes and sees the gun. He takes it and shots a man outside the building.

Now who is -most- responsible for this?
a) the company who made the gun?
b) the first man who bought the gun?
c) the second man who putted a bulled in the gun?
d) the child who fired the gun?
e) the man who walked in front of the house?

and what can be done to avoid a situation like the above? In a DOOMSW-like scenario, one could say that the first man shouldn't buy the gun. That'll work, since noone will be able to use the gun. But those two men won't practice in shooting (which is what they want/need to do).
The other option is to buy the gun but follow a different, "child-side" solution. For example, explain to the child that shooting people is bad :-). Or put the gun away from the child. Or put the child away from the gun.

There are many solutions to a problem, some of them are good, some are bad. Not letting users to use levels with the shareware WADs is a bad solution. Not making such PWADs is a good at first sight, but then one may want to make a E1 them level (well, he may "lock" his level by creating a small sector with a E2 texture but then we come to the same situation as above). Good solutions to problems are always hard to find, but they give the better results than bad solutions - that's why they're better :-).

note: Doom Builder allows you to use the shareware WADs in order to build levels.

I really do not think this is a big issue, and it's certainly not worth having an extensive argument on the forums about. I left the shareware checks intact in Eternity just because I figure it's the right thing to do. But, I don't think id is going to care either way. It's still better to play a map with the shareware wad than to pirate the registered version, which many MANY more people have done.

It's worth noting that in an open source project, such checks are useless anyways. You would barely need ANY knowledge of C at all to be able to find and remove the few lines of code in the source that prevent shareware loading and then compile your own version of ANY port that doesn't have shareware checks.

So, I guess we keep them intact just to give people a hard time ;)

Hehe yes, letting people play levels with the shareware WAD distracts them (only a bit) from pirating the full DOOM :-).

Quasar, i didn't thought that way :-) not even two hours ago when i told a friend about my port. He told me "uh, now i have to search for DOOM2..." and i gave him a link with the shareware version of DOOM. He was ok with that.


Now, does anyone has to do any comment on the port itself? :-). And does anyone knows where to find info on playing those MUS files? :-P.

Quasar said:
It's worth noting that in an open source project, such checks are useless anyways. You would barely need ANY knowledge of C at all to be able to find and remove the few lines of code in the source that prevent shareware loading and then compile your own version of ANY port that doesn't have shareware checks.

That done individually is the same as some dude getting a copy of DOOM somewhere anonymously... and at best he could build his shareware compatible wad to play with his friends or something. But the amount of engines released with identifiable names is small, and thus a perfect place to define gaming ethics... this is an open community issue, not some shady event somewhere which will be forgotten after it happens.

It's not about id interfering or anything like that. It's about our interaction as users. All wad text files are in themselves similar to id's request there, but on a smaller scale. They are all requests in regards to what to do or not to do with the wads released. If we don't respect id's requests there's little reason to see why we should care about each other's.

Personally, I see such uses of the source as destructive of the open source idea. In my eyes it loses respect and worth. The fact that the GPL license allows such things does not mean such things don't weaken it.

Bad Sector, your gun analogy is worthless. The most responsible group here would be the coders; they were given the source, and removing the limitation is the one most influential effect on the availability of shareware wads; there lies the responsibility, and the power to keep things in the right place. Not to mention it's an act of bad faith towards who offered the source code in the first place, who is (a big) part of the company making the request, which still stands, no matter what you believe.

That done individually is the same as some dude getting a copy of DOOM somewhere anonymously... and at best he could build his shareware compatible wad to play with his friends or something.

No it's not the same. If one gets a copy of DOOM "somewhere anonymously" (i suppose that you mean "pirated") then he is violating the license. This is not the case in letting people play levels with shareware wads.

Personally, I see such uses of the source as destructive of the open source idea. In my eyes it loses respect and worth. The fact that the GPL license allows such things does not mean such things don't weaken it.

That wrong. The open source idea is to have the sources available in order to make any modification you believe that it's worth doing it (either for you personally, either for everybody) and having the sources available to anyone.
I don't know any project that died after went opensource and if there is any one, that's because of it's maintainer(s) and not because of the fact that it went opensource and someone used the code in a way that someone (or some others) disliked. The source code is available in order to be used in ANY way one may like (as long as (s)he follows the license). Else it wouldn't be an opensource project.

When one makes a project open source, he knows (or should know) what the side effects could be. John Carmack is a smart person and i don't believe that he didn't knew that someone may remove this lock.

In many opensource projects, there are people who disagree with the decisions of other developers. You are a such case and this discussions leads nowhere. Sorry, but i'm not in a mood to continue this discussion, so i'm not gonna reply to this.

Now if id gets bankrupted because i removed the shareware lock from the sources and consider me as being responsible for this, then may it be.

Bad Sector said:
No it's not the same. If one gets a copy of DOOM "somewhere anonymously" (i suppose that you mean "pirated") then he is violating the license. This is not the case in letting people play levels with shareware wads.

You can say this because you're taking a crap on the "no shareware wads" request, which, in regards to wads, along with the combined wad text files people have written, is fundamental in respect to determining the "copyright" of wads. The DOOM community functions within itself, not in court, and these documents are quite valuable to the involved users and designers. They define the status of wads as creations. Coders messing with the "lock" are disregarding the "original" wad text file.

That wrong. The open source idea is to have the sources available in order to make any modification you believe that it's worth doing it (either for you personally, either for everybody) and having the sources available to anyone.

Open source projects exist within the world; projects made disregarding and deliberately infringing upon other circles or copyrights damage the license's value.

I don't know any project that died after went opensource and if there is any one, that's because of it's maintainer(s) and not because of the fact that it went opensource and someone used the code in a way that someone (or some others) disliked. The source code is available in order to be used in ANY way one may like (as long as (s)he follows the license). Else it wouldn't be an opensource project.

As I said, the misuse brings dislike for the license, which is in turn disregarded or bastardized even more as a result.

When one makes a project open source, he knows (or should know) what the side effects could be. John Carmack is a smart person and i don't believe that he didn't knew that someone may remove this lock.

He made it open source in order to help out with some community issues. Yet, even then, no one involved was forced to re-release their engines under the GPL; goodwill on their part made them trust this decision and thus followed suite and GPLed their engines. The same kind of goodwill that makes non-lame coders keep the requested lock on the sources/binaries, for a reason. There shouldn't be any shareware compatible wads.

In many opensource projects, there are people who disagree with the decisions of other developers. You are a such case and this discussions leads nowhere. Sorry, but i'm not in a mood to continue this discussion, so i'm not gonna reply to this.

Wrong. Defining what's ethically correct in regards to DOOM engines and wads is quite relevant, notwithstanding your alienated "it's open source, I can remove the lock so I'll do it, so people can be lame if they like" mentality.

Now if id gets bankrupted because i removed the shareware lock from the sources and consider me as being responsible for this, then may it be.

What a pointless, decontextualized comment.

Hmm, I was forgetting the the limitation on shareware compatible wads had a legal side with id's and Activision's claim under their license:

The DOOM Collector's Edition EULA declares:
2. Permitted New Creations. 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).

myk said:

Hmm, I was forgetting the the limitation on shareware compatible wads had a legal side with id's and Activision's claim under their license:

Yes, but that clause wasn't present in older versions of the license so it does not automatically apply to them!

myk said:

decontextualized

Word of the day.

Bad Sector said:

Hehe yes, letting people play levels with the shareware WAD distracts them (only a bit) from pirating the full DOOM :-).

Quasar, i didn't thought that way :-) not even two hours ago when i told a friend about my port. He told me "uh, now i have to search for DOOM2..." and i gave him a link with the shareware version of DOOM. He was ok with that.


Now, does anyone has to do any comment on the port itself? :-). And does anyone knows where to find info on playing those MUS files? :-P.

Heh, you're stupid.