It's Official - *Everything* Runs Doom

[Arioch]

On the contrary, the original Doom source license never prevented anyone from writing source ports. It did, however, prevent people from commercially exploiting the Doom source.

If you download the Doom source and it has no mention of the GPL license anywhere on it, then it is not under the GPL and you are not bound by the terms of the GPL. A copy of the license MUST be included in the distributed source for the GPL to be valid.

No matter if the Doom source is under the GPL or not, what this company is doing, assuming that the Doom source was involved in their for-profit "add-on pack," is illegal. In the first case it would be if they did not make the source available, and in the second it would be the fact that they're selling it at all.

Nobody is (legally) selling a Doom source port now (that they haven't individually licensed from id), in any case.

[mewse]

Quasar said:

People, DOOM *is* under the GPL now. If you download the source code now and base a new product off it, it is bound by the terms of the GPL license, whether you like that fact or not.

Sorry Quasar, you are the weakest link. There is no clause in the old license for id to apply a new license retroactively.

If you obtain the Doom source code with the old license, you are bound by the old license, NOT the GPL.

[Cyb]

Haha.

Dear Quasar, you have just been dual licensed the fuck out of. Love mewse and arioch.

[fraggle]

The doom source is available under the original source license and the GPL. If you create a port or modification and choose to use the original source license, you are not obliged to release the source but you cannot make money from it. If you use the GPL you can sell it but you are obliged to release the source as Free Software. So by releasing this port without source and for a fee they are violating ids license.

This is assuming it is based on the doom source. It says that it contains no copyrighted id software material, which I highly doubt.

[fraggle]

Quasar said:

I don't understand what the resistance to the GPL in this community is about.

I dont see any resistance to the GPL myself. I have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you have over 100 signatures to me seems like a great thing. How many people do you think play doom now anyway?

[Arioch]

fraggle said:

I dont see any resistance to the GPL myself. I have no idea what you're talking about. The fact that you have over 100 signatures to me seems like a great thing. How many people do you think play doom now anyway?

Let's quantify that even further: how many people do you think still play doom and cares a whit about source ports, and how many of those care a whit about the ports that use the hexen/heretic source code.

[Ghostpilot]

Quasar said:

I figure the kind of crap flying around in here is the same reason my Heretic/Hexen GPL petition still only has 106 signatures.

Where can I find your petition so I can sign it?
It´s nice to see that someone actually cares enough to actually do something. Most people here (myself included) just waits for new releases and complains.

[Arioch]

It's linked to from his page.

http://www.doomworld.com/eternity/

[Lost Soul]

deathz0r said:

http://deathwarrior.slipgate.org/doomspec1.gif
http://deathwarrior.slipgate.org/doomspec2.gif
http://deathwarrior.slipgate.org/doomspec3.gif

/me blinks in astonishment

Where in the name of all that is holy can I get this game!?
Is it a rom I can download..somewhere out there... or a cartridge or something I gotta look REAL hard for?

(I got a penchant for cruddy games in case anyone is wondering. It's like having a B-movie collection.;) )

[Law]

I havn't seen that version of spectrum Doom. Under what name is it under, thats if you found it on the spectrum rom search engine?

[Quasar]

Arioch, you are wrong about the original DOOM license, and here is the proof, taken directly from it

2. Permitted Uses. For educational purposes only, you, the end user, may use portions of the Source Code, such as particular routines, to develop your own software, but may not duplicate the Source Code, except as noted in paragraph 4...

4. Copyright. The Software and all copyrights related thereto (including all characters and other images generated by the Software or depicted in the Software) are owned by ID and is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Id shall retain exclusive ownership and copyright in and to the Software and all portions of the Software and you shall have no ownership or other proprietary interest in such materials. You must treat the Software like any other copyrighted material. You may not otherwise reproduce, copy or disclose to others, in whole or in any part, the Software. You may not copy the written materials accompanying the Software. You agree to use your best efforts to see that any user of the Software licensed hereunder complies with this Agreement...

Also, I believed that the intent of Carmack was that all subsequent distribution of the source by id to third parties was to be under the GPL. If there is a package out there being provided by id which is not compliant, they need to be told about it so they can fix it.

Because the original DOOM license clearly forbids distribution of the whole source as a DOOM port product, even for "educational use," the only valid license for distribution of a port IS the GPL.

If you want to argue over the legal meaning of phrases like "you may not reproduce, copy, or disclose to others, in whole or in any part, the software," I suggest you ask a lawyer about it. After all, I'm no expert, but that seems pretty clear to me.

[myk]

Ah, this is fun. Actually, what you're saying seems right, but you're not looking at the whole thing. Note that that is called the "Limited Use Software License Agreement." If you read i_main.c in the '97 release (which is accompanied by a text that says that the source may be used for non-profit, clearly) it repeats this about using it for non-profit, and directs one to the "DOOM Source Code License" which DOES NOT EXIST. John Carmack, I presume, doesn't care too much about the exact license status of DOOM as long as other companies and capital based enterprises cannot freely exploit it and appropiate it. As for the GPL release, he did that to solve a conflict over someone not releasing the source, and then again with csdoom. But otherwise the papers aren't exactly "in order." The GPL release was kind of like a "word of mouth" relicensing, since from what I know all Carmack ever did was email someone at Doomworld the source with a quick note indicating the new license is the GPL but didn't even bother writing it down anywhere public. In any case, you (in particular, and anyone else concerned about license clashes for any reason) could be concerned cause you may have problems, like in distributing it with other GPL source code or being hosted by sourceforge (but then again, zdoomgl is hosted there now... it doesn't seem like they give a shit either.) None of the licenses ever made sense. It is obvious that Carmack isn't concerned about what's done in the non-profit doom community, nor do I think id will do anything if a DOOM source based engine appears in a Linux release or something. Has it? Will it? Because if I'm not mistaken debian is being packaged along with prboom already...

[Quasar]

No I am sorry, you are incorrect. The DOOM Source Code license DOES exist, and I verified that it is still included in the linuxdoom 1.10 source archive on ftp.idsoftware.com in the file "doomlic.txt" -- this text file is a legally binding license.

Frankly, everyone knows that Carmack wants the DOOM source to be used and distributed. But those are two of the reasons that he changed the source from the restrictive DSL to the GPL, because the GPL allows free distribution and modification.

I have written Carmack about this issue and I am currently awaiting his reply.

[Arioch]

ftp://3darchives.in-span.net/pub/idgames/idstuff/source/doomsrc.txt

This looks pretty authoritative to me.

If you read the preamble of doomlic.txt you'd see that "Software" refers to "artwork data, music and software tools" which in this instance is clearly in reference to the various IWADs and there is no limitation on "Source Code" which refers to "source code" save that you cannot exploit it commercially--except you still could, under the terms of doomlic.txt's Educational license provision.

So, you are now officially shot down on this matter.

Thanks.

[mewse]

quasar i'm not sure if you remember, but i wrote an article on the retardedness of all these licenses..

i also emailed john carmack to see if the GPL superseded the old license. he responded that no, there was no clause in the old licence which allowed him to revoke the old terms to fully establish the GPL.

it's too bad i've lost it, it even got mentioned on slashdot...

[Fredrik]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/06/16/1242246&mode=nested&tid=127

(just searched slashdot for 'mewse' =)

[SilverLight]

Doom on Atari 2600

This was a hoax, by the way.

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Arcade/8691/2600DOOM.HTM

[Quasar]

Arioch said:

ftp://3darchives.in-span.net/pub/idgames/idstuff/source/doomsrc.txt

This looks pretty authoritative to me.

Whatever it is, it must not be what is included in the archive that's on ftp.idsoftware.com, because the doomlic.txt file in that archive has no "preamble" and makes no distinction between "source code" and "program."

[Quasar]

mewse said:

i also emailed john carmack to see if the GPL superseded the old license. he responded that no, there was no clause in the old licence which allowed him to revoke the old terms to fully establish the GPL.

I remember that but it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Carmack is not obligated to *keep providing to new licensees* the DOOM source under the old license. If he actually took the time to dispose of and have replaced the old archives, then no new licensees would be able to obtain the DOOM source under any of these apparently now multiple EULA-style licenses.

I never said anything about retroactively changing the license for current licensees. That is what there's no legal basis for.

[Arioch]

This is the beginning of the file DOOMLIC.TXT which is contained within the file linuxdoom-1.10.src.tgz which is contained within doomsrc.zip as downloaded from ftp.idsoftware.com, and clearly sets out the distinction between the usage of the words "Source Code" and "Software" in the rest of the license.

        
      
      LIMITED USE SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
       
        This Limited Use Software License Agreement (the "Agreement")
is a legal agreement between you, the end-user, and Id Software, Inc.
("ID").  By downloading or purchasing the software material, which
includes source code (the "Source Code"), artwork data, music and 
software tools (collectively, the "Software"), you are agreeing to
be bound by the terms of this Agreement.  If you do not agree to the
terms of this Agreement, promptly destroy the Software you may have
downloaded or copied.

So in fact you were hallucinating.

[Quasar]

Ok I see what you mean, but, I think that construct is sort of vague at the same time. It could be construed either way, that the latter definition of Software includes the source code. The end sentence of that paragraph seems to me to support that position, as it refers to the "Software" you downloaded -- that seems to refer to the package as a whole and all its contents.

But note I said THAT position and not MY position. Like I said earlier, I am not a lawyer and I'm not going to try to deal with ambiguous license language. Article 2 of the license, which establishes terms for educational use of "the Software," whatever that may really be, is very vague. It uses terms like "portions" of the source code, such as certain "routines." None of these are clear or legal terms and should always be avoided in a legal contract, but there they are anyways.

Also, even if you disagree with me about the vagueness of the comma-separated list and its definitions, you cannot argue with this:

For educational purposes only, you, the end user, may use portions of the Source Code, such as particular routines, to develop your own software, but may not duplicate the Source Code, except as noted in paragraph 4

This clearly makes a DOOM port illegal, as it is necessarily a derivative work based on the source code, containing nearly 100% of the original code. Even zdoom with its vast changes still contains large portions of easily identifiable code straight from the DOOM engine, much more than would represent a "particular routine."

At least you are given the benefit of the doubt with respect to this license that it has always been the otherwise expressed intent of Carmack to allow distribution and modification. But then the same could be said of the Heretic and Hexen code as well, and look at the license it has.

Its all a question of your own personal judgment ultimately. If you think you're violating any licenses, ask the people responsible for writing them. But I suggest that no one in the community simply assume they are not liable for ignoring any proprietary licenses, regardless of how vague their terminology. And the only absolutely safe interpretation of vague terminology is the most restrictive one, I believe.

I have not been trying to fight with you about this license Arioch, I am just trying to make a point here.

[myk]

http://www.doomworld.com/comments/813.shtml

Is the anonymous user on that thread saying MBF is GPL Lee Killough?

Quasar, that doesn't mean a source port under the old license is illegal, it means the source code used is owned by id Software, and that it may not be distributed for profit (only bits of code used for educational purposes may be used for profit, as stated at the end of paragraph 3.) It does not otherwise prohibit distributing the Source Code, only the Software.

[Quasar]

myk said:

http://www.doomworld.com/comments/813.shtml

Is the anonymous user on that thread saying MBF is GPL Lee Killough?

Quasar, that doesn't mean a source port under the old license is illegal, it means the source code used is owned by id Software, and that it may not be distributed for profit (only bits of code used for educational purposes may be used for profit, as stated at the end of paragraph 3.) It does not otherwise prohibit distributing the Source Code, only the Software.

Lee Killough never posted on the Doomworld forums to my knowledge. If he did, he certainly didn't after leaving the DOOM community, which he did a long time before MBF was made GPL.

2. Permitted Uses. For educational purposes only, you, the
end-user, may use portions of the Source Code, such as particular
routines, to develop your own software, but may not duplicate the
Source Code, except as noted in paragraph 4.

This says you can make a new software product which contains some parts of the source code. It does NOT say you can take the source code in its entirety, change 500 out of its 100,000 lines, and then release it as a DOOM port, no, in fact it says you cannot do that by saying that you cannot duplicate the source code. Also, paragraph 4, which talks about the "Software," adds no further permissions to what you can do with the "Source Code," so that exception there is unnecessary.

But, exactly how much code CAN you use in a project and have it still be considered educational use of portions of the source? This is where the vagueness I speak of above comes in. This provision would not stand up in a court, I think, and it would be thrown out as unenforceable, more than likely.

I've tired of this subject now, though, so I probably won't be posting here any more. Its just getting repetitive because people aren't paying attention to what the license actually says, and after all, who cares anyways :P

[deathz0r]

Law said:

I havn't seen that version of spectrum Doom. Under what name is it under, thats if you found it on the spectrum rom search engine?

doom1_5b.trd, just look on WoS. use Yase or X128 to play it.

[myk]

Quasar, it doesn't say you can't. It says that distributed DOOM source (all the code Carmack & friends wrote) is still property of id Software and cannot be profited from, except in part for educational purposes. The part allowing source ports and other modifications is expressed in the text accompanying the source release, coupled with the note given at the start of the source... and, not to mention, with the releasing of the source itself. Why did Carmack release it initially then, to eat us alive if we touched it? It fell off his harddrive?

[dieKatze88]

jeez, where did this start?

[Doom-Child]

I don't know. One minute I'm making spookily accurate predictions of DOOM being ported to ordinary home appliances and the next minute my sage-like futurism is swept away by so much petty quibbling.

Of course, it could be that I just like to say "quibbling".

DC