Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
jval

Ports and Shareware IWAD

Recommended Posts

Original linuxdoom source:

if ( gamemode == shareware)
I_Error("\nYou cannot -file with the shareware "
"version. Register!");


Does modern ports make this check? I mean, the old days ID-Software didn't wanted any mods or levels to run with the shareware version. Should a port allow modified games with shareware? Is it right? Is it legal?

Does a modern port have to make this check? Is it OK to ignore this?
(I know, even if it makes this check, someone can remove this line of code and compile it again, but just in case ....)

Share this post


Link to post

It is not legal. You are violating the shareware data EULA by using any patch WAD

...which sucks for those ports that have a wad it needs to loads and the skins/ folder (zdoom) and still enforces the -files check

Share this post


Link to post

The shareware EULA may state that you cannot use PWADs with it, but there is certainly nothing "illegal" about removing that check from the source code. I think some ports have already done this. There's no requirement for authors of source ports to enforce the shareware EULA, just like there's no requirement for them to check that you aren't using the "pirated" 1.666 IWAD.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Freedoom "demo" IWAD contains roughly the same resources as the Doom shareware IWAD, but obviously does not have these restrictions.

More practically, the shareware IWAD doesn't have a complete set of textures, monsters, etc. Most PWADs probably won't work anyway for that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
leileilol said:

It is not legal. You are violating the shareware data EULA by using any patch WAD

...which sucks for those ports that have a wad it needs to loads and the skins/ folder (zdoom) and still enforces the -files check

an EULA is an end user license agreement. So it is up to the person running the pwads to abide by it, not the ports to enforce it.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

More practically, the shareware IWAD doesn't have a complete set of textures, monsters, etc. Most PWADs probably won't work anyway for that reason.


What about other mods like DEH and BEX or Hi-resolution textures packs? Or sprite replacements?

Share this post


Link to post

fraggle said:
It's also worth bearing in mind that the Freedoom "demo" IWAD contains roughly the same resources as the Doom shareware IWAD, but obviously does not have these restrictions.

Wads are made for or have been made for DOOM, not Freedoom, and it's clear that even if engines support Freedoom (if only because Freedoom is a leech clone of id's games, for the most part), people use them mainly for the DOOM games, and one would expect all parties involved to respect "not for the shareware" requirement even if such a (arguably unnecessary) demo exists.

The demo is a stupid idea anyway, if its done exactly under "shareware specifications", knowing what id requests. Everyone knows Feedoom only exists because of DOOM, its popularity and its mass of addons. Knowing that all wad authors made their thousands of levels to comply specifically with id's request, to remove the shareware wad restriction, or even to make that mimicking demo wad, is unethical.

More practically, the shareware IWAD doesn't have a complete set of textures, monsters, etc. Most PWADs probably won't work anyway for that reason.

Because for the most part wad authors have played their part in discouraging shareware compatibility, as level editors have, and, one would expect, engine coders, each in their own way.

jval said:
the old days ID-Software didn't wanted any mods or levels to run with the shareware version.

What makes you think this applied only during the "old days" and not now?

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

The demo is a stupid idea anyway, if its done exactly under "shareware specifications", knowing what id requests. Everyone knows Feedoom only exists because of DOOM, its popularity and its mass of addons. Knowing that all wad authors made their thousands of levels to comply specifically with id's request, to remove the shareware wad restriction, or even to make that mimicking demo wad, is unethical.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

Share this post


Link to post

Freedoom is a leech clone of id's games


what? have you ever played freedoom? it's a great alternative iwad for doom engines and besides it is,in contrast to id's doom iwads, released under the GNU GPL which allows mod creators to use,alter and redistribute it's resources at will,which clearly is not the fact with iD's IWADs

The demo is a stupid idea anyway


what makes you think so? the demo is,as the title "demo" says, a good and small representation for people who first want to try freedoom out before downloading the whole 15mb wad,which makes sense for people who are still on 56k

besides, freedoom is good if you want to be abled to play doom mods but don't want to play iD's levels or use their resources (like sprites,textures and sounds)

[/rant]

Share this post


Link to post
farhaven said:

in contrast to id's doom iwads, released under the GNU GPL

No it's not; it's under a 3-clause BSD license.

Share this post


Link to post

MikeRS said:
Do you even know what you're talking about?

The makers and contributors of Freedoom don't have any special (copy) rights over the mass of released wads, which were made for id's DOOM games. Ironically, Freedoom makers themselves are bound by the EULA, or else how can they make resources that are similar to DOOMs? They magically know what to replace? It's because they own the games.

You have the game, you look at its resources, and you make ones that are similar to or equivalent to them so that your new internal wad can be used with addons that were made under the condition that they would be for the original. In other words, that Freedoom is done in a degree of bad faith. At the very least, one can refrain from doing the demo that additionally encourages the creation of wads that are fully compatible with id's shareware, or else to make it using resources (patches, textures, flats) with new names so that demo based wads are not compatible with id's shareware.

Freedoom should really have been a true new game (a true "TC"), using DeHackEd (and BEX) to customize new gameplay fitting new and original resources, prioritizing quality and consistency over merely mimicking id's work in order to provide a free alternative for existing addons.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Freedoom should really have been a true new game (a true "TC"), using DeHackEd (and BEX) to customize new gameplay fitting new and original resources, prioritizing quality and consistency over merely mimicking id's work in order to provide a free alternative for existing addons.


NO also way to miss the point of freedoom!

Share this post


Link to post

leileilol said:
also way to miss the point of freedoom!

I missed nothing, considering I spelled that point out myself and said why I think it's a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post

EE enforces shareware checks on all methods for adding files (or at least it will if it doesn't currently... MBF autoloading may be overlooked). This means that when a shareware gamemode is in use (be it Doom or Heretic), not only is -file disabled, but so is the dynamic wad loading menu, the "addfile" console command, the "wadfile = " command in GFS scripts, and the ability to use the base/game/autoload directory.

The engine's accompanying resource wad isn't considered a user PWAD, nor is loading it a problem. In fact, it *has* to be present for EE to use the shareware IWAD, since the shareware IWAD is missing a few resources for which it is not acceptable or even not possible to code a special case for shareware. If you want to modify the resource PWAD to contain other resources, I cannot stop you from doing that. If you are that determined and have the requisite Doom editing knowledge to do so, then in my eyes you get what you deserve. The legal stuff with respect to the shareware IWAD is between the end user and id Software at any rate.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

The makers and contributors of Freedoom don't have any special (copy) rights over the mass of released wads, which were made for id's DOOM games. Ironically, Freedoom makers themselves are bound by the EULA, or else how can they make resources that are similar to DOOMs? They magically know what to replace? It's because they own the games.

I for one am of the opinion that the EULA is pretty much unenforceable in this respect. It is a form of shrink wrap contract, which means it is immediately on uncertain legal ground, and the demands it makes (essentially "by installing this software, if you ever make a file of this type you can never sell it") is pretty ridiculous.

You have the game, you look at its resources, and you make ones that are similar to or equivalent to them so that your new internal wad can be used with addons that were made under the condition that they would be for the original. In other words, that Freedoom is done in a degree of bad faith. At the very least, one can refrain from doing the demo that additionally encourages the creation of wads that are fully compatible with id's shareware, or else to make it using resources (patches, textures, flats) with new names so that demo based wads are not compatible with id's shareware.

The purpose of the demo WAD was to provide a developmental goal that would allow a complete game to be created. Freedoom is still not finished today, but a complete "shareware IWAD" is a much more plausible goal. My hope was that this would help to break down the development of the project into more attainable goals; people are less likely to contribute to a project when it seems likely that it will never be finished.

As far as I know, nobody has ever made or planned to make a PWAD that works with the Freedoom demo WAD. Doing so would be a pretty pointless exercise. I'm just providing it as an example to demonstrate that the EULA isn't always applicable, and the -file restriction not always a necessary or valid restriction to make.

I'd also disagree with the claim that Freedoom is done in bad faith and that the resources are just copies of the originals. The submission guidelines explicitly say not to copy the originals, and a lot of the recent submissions have been changes to replace existing material with new material that is more creatively different from the original Doom versions. Finally, we have complied with Id's wishes by not using their trademarked characters. I doubt anyone would disagree that the Freedoom monsters and sprites are very radically different from the originals.

Share this post


Link to post

fraggle said:
I for one am of the opinion that the EULA is pretty much unenforceable in this respect.

It's been more or less enforced rather consistently by the community through the years.

My hope was that this would help to break down the development of the project into more attainable goals; people are less likely to contribute to a project when it seems likely that it will never be finished.

You could well concentrate on episodes (such as levels 1-6 or 1-11 for starters), instead of the whole thing.

As far as I know, nobody has ever made or planned to make a PWAD that works with the Freedoom demo WAD.

They might, if it's available and offered with an encouragement on making addons for it. Others will take it as an excuse to make shareware compatible wads. Didn't it enter this thread's discussion that way?

I'd also disagree with the claim that Freedoom is done in bad faith and that the resources are just copies of the originals.

The bad faith is in regard to its main purpose being so that PWADs can be used with something other than id's IWADs, by mimicking their IWADs closely in regard to specs, even if a portion of the resources are visually different. That purpose also became Freedoom's main develoment focus, overshadowing any other focus that could have given it a better design. Projects of a similar scope have been made to good or better effect in less time by less people, but they were made for the love of artistry and gameplay instead of to fill a number of specific lump slots.

I doubt anyone would disagree that the Freedoom monsters and sprites are very radically different from the originals.

Indeed; I think all of the resources should be like this, and all the patches, flats, and textures (and even sprites, though DeHackEd) should have their own names, as well. On that account, I don't even know where you guys got the idea that lumps like TEXTURE1 and PNAMES aren't part of id's copyright. I don't mean the format or anything, but the concrete ones in the IWADs.

To me it's not too late for Freedoom to shift gears to a more unique development line, with a freer design and more self-consistency. You could start with a smaller objective (a single episode, leaving the rest with blanks and adding a MapInfo lump or equivalents for more advanced engines), rearranging existing resources and concentrating on reworking specific resources that become useful to the design as such. Upon completion it would be a quality game of its own to use with the avilable Boom compatible engines and to package along with free software and systems, encouraging users to provide additional addons for it (including temporary or final contributions to the core wad, with the administrators' discretion). Additionally, for this to work the main admins for the project should be mostly artists and designers, and not coders.

Such a project would be clearly untainted by any implications of being a clone of id's work overall, or of existing merely to appropriate DOOM community patch wads, and would have a character of its own.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

It's been more or less enforced rather consistently by the community through the years.

I'm not sure what you mean by "enforced by the community". I mean that an EULA that makes such demands is unfair and would not stand up in court. Actually, it was noted on IRC that the shareware PWAD thing isn't actually in the EULA; there's just a note attached to the shareware version of Doom that says "Id respectfully requests that you do not make PWADs for the shareware version of Doom". Those requests have been honored, as far as I know, and a Freedoom demo WAD has nothing to do with that whatsoever.

You could well concentrate on episodes (such as levels 1-6 or 1-11 for starters), instead of the whole thing.

The demo WAD levels have been incorporated into the larger IWAD, so in a sense, we are. The point is that when complete, we will have a complete free IWAD, albeit not a full IWAD.

They might, if it's available and offered with an encouragement on making addons for it. Others will take it as an excuse to make shareware compatible wads. Didn't it enter this thread's discussion that way?

No. When did I or anyone ever encourage people to make addons for the demo WAD?

To me it's not too late for Freedoom to shift gears to a more unique development line, with a freer design and more self-consistency. You could start with a smaller objective (a single episode, leaving the rest with blanks and adding a MapInfo lump or equivalents for more advanced engines), rearranging existing resources and concentrating on reworking specific resources that become useful to the design as such. Upon completion it would be a quality game of its own to use with the avilable Boom compatible engines and to package along with free software and systems, encouraging users to provide additional addons for it (including temporary or final contributions to the core wad, with the administrators' discretion). Additionally, for this to work the main admins for the project should be mostly artists and designers, and not coders.

Such a project would be clearly untainted by any implications of being a clone of id's work overall, or of existing merely to appropriate DOOM community patch wads, and would have a character of its own.

If you want to start such a project, go ahead. Freedoom is open source.

Share this post


Link to post

fraggle said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "enforced by the community". I mean that an EULA that makes such demands is unfair and would not stand up in court.

I'm saying "the community" has always insisted upon making wads for the games specifically, which is evidently id's intent in its requests and EULA clause. It could actually stand up in US court, taking any addons with lumps based off the IWADs' as "derivative work" (incidentally the country where id originates), at least. Currently Freedoom does include such lumps, particularly the organizational lumps, such as, but not necessarily limited to, the two mentioned above. This is all pretty clear as id's stance as well, from Carmack's reply to your question, back when you asked him.

Actually, it was noted on IRC that the shareware PWAD thing isn't actually in the EULA; there's just a note attached to the shareware version of Doom that says "Id respectfully requests that you do not make PWADs for the shareware version of Doom".

Not really: 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). This is the same (newer) EULA you have on your site.

When did I or anyone ever encourage people to make addons for the demo WAD?

It came into this thread as an argument on the side of the possibility of not adding the shareware check.

If you want to start such a project, go ahead. Freedoom is open source.

I'd certainly be willing to contribute to such a project, and even to help put together. But here I'm contributing to Freedoom by pointing out what I think is essentially wrong with it, and what stops me from contributing in more concrete ways. I think people in the community should take this issue into account, as well, due to the magnitude of the project.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't EULAs usally come with the software?


It might as well be a clause with the registered/retail versions of Doom, but it's certainly not included with the shareware version of Doom; even not the one on ftp.idsoftware.com

Share this post


Link to post

MikeRS said:
Don't EULAs usally come with the software?

EULAs can grant you limited rights not implied for a copyrighted work (such as creating derivative works). The lack of an EULA makes it more restrictive to users, not less.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Ironically, Freedoom makers themselves are bound by the EULA, or else how can they make resources that are similar to DOOMs? They magically know what to replace? It's because they own the games.


Or because in 14 years, a great deal of independent info can be gathered on nearly any game/software for which there's a large enough community? You'd be surprised how much about the .WAD format and Doom's resources was "figured out" during the first year of Doom's life, before id decided to actively give a hand to developers.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Not really: 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). This is the same (newer) EULA you have on your site.


The purpose of a license agreement is to control how that software in particular is used. IMO the Doom EULA oversteps those bounds. Modifications like Freedoom are completely separate copyrighted works that Id have no rights to control the distribution of.

It's worth noting that the EULA also says "You shall not rent, sell, lease, lend, offer on a pay-per-play basis or otherwise commercially exploit or commercially distribute the New Creations", yet collections like D!Zone never had any trouble from Id.


It came into this thread as an argument on the side of the possibility of not adding the shareware check.

I was using it as an example to demonstrate that even if it was the job of port authors to enforce the EULA, it isn't always appropriate to enforce it. I was never encouraging anyone to actually make PWADs for shareware Doom.

Share this post


Link to post

fraggle said:
Modifications like Freedoom are completely separate copyrighted works that Id have no rights to control the distribution of.

Freedoom would be, you mean, were it not to contain materials from the IWADs, as it currently does (e.g., TEXTURE1, PNAMES).

You can consider two types of "derivative works"; merely conceptual ones, where the derivation is only that it requires the original to exist in some direct or indirect way, such as a wad that contains an E1M1 from scratch, and those that are literally derived, because they contain data that's from the original. You can argue the conceptual ones can be considered "separate copyrighted works", as otherwise you're restricting new work that evidently replies to the other work but is completely new, but not literal derivations, because they are using portions of the original work directly.

It's worth noting that the EULA also says "You shall not rent, sell, lease, lend, offer on a pay-per-play basis or otherwise commercially exploit or commercially distribute the New Creations", yet collections like D!Zone never had any trouble from Id.

Your point? That you think you can "get away with it"? According to the '94 DOOM Conference they claimed they did take some actions against said CD bundles, if that matters to you.

I was never encouraging anyone to actually make PWADs for shareware Doom.

You weren't intentionally saying "guys lets make shareware compatible wads", but by making an shareware equivalent demo wad you encourage such behavior (especially if this is coupled with the removal of the wad loading restriction in engines). Regardless, upon examination, the greater issue is that Freedoom can run DOOM wads at all. That pretty much defines that it's not a "completely different game" like what Carmack gave the okay to, in the process necessarily including data from right out of the IWADs.

In retrospect you guys should have listened to cph back in '01. Still, it's not too late to correct this and rework or reorganize what been put effort into so that Freedoom can become truly free, both legally and in regard to design.

Share this post


Link to post

People could make PWADs for Doom 1 shareware. They don't need to wait for Freedoom to come along.

Besides, shareware doesn't even have all the resources of the full Doom 1; much less the long-term Freedoom goal of being compatible with Doom 2 PWADs. Nobody would <i>want</i> to make a PWAD for it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

Freedoom would be, you mean, were it not to contain materials from the IWADs, as it currently does (e.g., TEXTURE1, PNAMES).[/b/

That is absurd. If the texture names are all copyright by id, then better remove all the pwads from the archives! THEY ALL CONTAIN ID's COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL!

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

In retrospect you guys should have listened to cph back in '01. Still, it's not too late to correct this and rework or reorganize what been put effort into so that Freedoom can become truly free, both legally and in regard to design.

Not to argue about anything, but seriously, what is it worth to you? You make it sound like you couldn't sleep your nights well if there's even a single community project that might not be compliant with some theoretical iD legal docs out of outer space; even if it really doesn't concern you personally or even if it's pretty obvious that no one's going to sue anyone over the potentially illegal projects.

Share this post


Link to post

myk said:
Freedoom would be, you mean, were it not to contain materials from the IWADs, as it currently does (e.g., TEXTURE1, PNAMES).

PNAMES is merely a list of available patches, and therefore not copyrightable. TEXTURE1 is a list of instructions on turning those patches into textures, so arguably it does fall under id's copyright. COLORMAP and PLAYPAL I'm not sure...

Share this post


Link to post

Ajapted said:
That is absurd. If the texture names are all copyright by id, then better remove all the pwads from the archives! THEY ALL CONTAIN ID's COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL!

It's more like the reason why they consider the PWADs to be derivative software. They've always quite approved of modding as long as it was taken as a nonprofit extension of the game. They never stated any portions of the IWADs are public domain, but they have stated portions could be used in addons under certain conditions.

Share this post


Link to post

jval said:
like chex.wad

Either Digital Café had an arrangement with id Software (obtained a license) or it's copyright infringement.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×