Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Doom Editing Digest Vol. 01 Nr. 071
From: owner-doom-editing-digest
To: doom-editing-digest@nvg.unit.no
Subject: doom-editing-digest V1 #71
Reply-To: doom-editing
Errors-To: owner-doom-editing-digest
Precedence: bulk
doom-editing-digest Friday, 2 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 071
Re: Modifying DOOM(2).EXE
On a lighter note (Heretic?)
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: NOT modifying the EXE
Re: doom-editing-digest V1 #70
Re: On a lighter note (Heretic?)
Re: NOT modifying the EXE
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
How to edit the ".exe"
Re: Illegal stuff
Re: How to edit the ".exe"
Re: How to edit the ".exe"
Re: Illegal stuff
Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: NOT modifying the EXE
Re: Illegal stuff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rprock@damage.com (Ray Prock)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:55:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Modifying DOOM(2).EXE
[stuff about not reverse engineering the doom engine purged]
>
> --
> Scott Coleman, President ASRE (American Society of Reverse Engineers)
> asre@uiuc.edu
> Life is temporally limited - drive velocitously!
>
Kind've an ironic .sig, eh? ;^)
------------------------------
From: cant@softchoice.com (Christian Antkow)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 11:09:19 -0800
Subject: On a lighter note (Heretic?)
Seeing as how we've all been ranting about legal implications of
EXE hacking, thought I'd introduce a breather and see if anyone knows
when and where Heretic would be released (This IS December 1st...)
Any plans to start a heritic-editing mailing list???
- --
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Christian Antkow cant@softchoice.com
Opinions are my own and in no way reflect those of the SoftChoice Corporation
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: Brad Spencer <spencer@ug.cs.dal.ca>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 13:08:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
On Wed, 30 Nov 1994 ffjjd@aurora.alaska.edu wrote:
> I think what we need to do then is devise a way for id to tell us what's on
> their minds and at the same time not cause them legal hassles. I think what
> this means is that they are in a situation where they can't directly
> *state* that it's OK to modify their exec so we have to devise a way for
> them to tell us such that they don't have to state it. For example if Greg
> wrote to Jay and said "if you truly don't want us to modify the EXE in any
> way then write me back and say so. If it's just a legal precaution and you
> don't mind if we modify the EXE then simply don't respond to this message."
>
> This way Jay can give tacit permission without literally having to say so
> and we can find out where he really stands on this. At the same time Jay
> can claim ignorance if a legal dispute arises and has still protected
> himself. I'm not sure if my example is the best way to go about it but
> that's the sort of thing I'm thinking about.
>
> Clint
>
I agree with you, but the problem is that now with you having said this,
maybe someone could argue that Jay really did give permission by using
the phrase that you mentioned :) As I said before, the phrasing of the
response seems to indicate that he doesn't mind what Greg is doing, but
has to protect his program against more "dangerous hackers".
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Spencer - Bilbo - spencer@ug.cs.dal.ca - Dalhousie University
"Everybody is Kung-Fu Fragging . . ."
------------------------------
From: Lane Copley <lcopley@crl.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:19:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
>
> If this is why they did what they did then it does make a little sense to
> me. What would be really nice is if they could simply tell us, in some sly
> manner, if this is the case. It would be nice to know for example if
They already have. The one-line reply after the license.doc thingie sez
no. The REAL response is that they haven't sue ANYBODY yet, and it looks
as if they won't as long as nobody threatens their original games. Give
it a rest, guys. If we make too much noise IDs lawyers will get
ambitious (read: greedy) and decide to sue somebody, anybody, to get a
slice of this pie.
To defend against this, I suggest discussions of this question go to
(more) private mail, and we all act innocent as hell, which is what we are.
Never mind this legal shit, unless you are an attorney with too much time
on your hands.
I hope you can all grasp the importance of this. Legal troubles can ruin
a life. _Anyone's_ life.
- --
Lane Copley, lurker on the DOOM editing list
Hmm...this must be where the witticisms go. Maybe I can copy Kibo's?
------------------------------
From: Robert Forsman <thoth@cis.ufl.edu>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 12:28:55 EST
Subject: Re: NOT modifying the EXE
Chainsaw Jim <jimu@point.cs.uwm.edu> ,in message <199412011604.KAA06356@point.c
s.uwm.edu>, wrote:
> Modifying save game files is not permitted. Read your LICENCE.DOC; the
> only maps may be edited.
I didn't say I was going to modify them, just interpret them :)
> Go ahead. Just try and modify a save game file, and id will sue your ass
> silly. In fact, I'd be surprised if the FBI isn't already on it's way to
> confiscate your computer.
Please, it's not like they need evidence of wrongdoing to confiscate your
equipment...
- --
"Welcome to the police state"
------------------------------
From: asre@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:43:00 +0100
Subject: Re: doom-editing-digest V1 #70
> > Utility and PWAD authors have thus far been fairly willing to abide by
> > id's wishes - no PWADs run with shareware DOOM, no WAD editors or item
> > randomizers will edit the shareware WAD, etc. etc. Tree, do you really
> > want to cross this particular line in the sand?
>
> DeHackEd does not cross the line of editing the shareware Doom exe file,
> in case that's what you meant.
No, not that.
> Crossing the line of "abiding by Id's wishes" though is a bit more sticky.
Yes, this is the line I meant. ;-)
> My current thoughts on the matter
> are that I will release the next version (v2.2), and call it quits on
> further developement. I don't feel that Id is entirely correct on their
> stance (hence "one last version"), but I respect them for what they
> *have* done and will stop anything further for that reason.
Makes sense.
> > hacking from taking place, but at least they won't have a convenient
> > scapegoat to lynch (i.e. by doing this, Tree can "Cover his Trunk," so
> > to speak ;-) By withdrawing it, id stays happy, Tree stays safe from
> > (potential) legal hassles, and everyone else's DOOM playing is only
> > minimally affected.
>
> This I basically agree with. Some could see it as "caving in" to Id's
> wishes, but I think it's probably the correct thing to do. It looks like
> (from the response that's been generated) that this is still a fairly
> volatile issue. I just hope no major turn for the worse comes from it
> (ie, Id tries to protect themselves more and be restrictive in the future).
Right - THIS is the real reason to do it. If we cooperate with id and
respect their reasonable requests, they'll undoubtedly continue to
cooperate with us and continue to provide an open architecture from
which everyone benefits.
- --
Scott Coleman, President ASRE (American Society of Reverse Engineers)
asre@uiuc.edu
Life is temporally limited - drive velocitously!
------------------------------
From: Robert Forsman <thoth@cis.ufl.edu>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 12:44:16 EST
Subject: Re: On a lighter note (Heretic?)
cant@softchoice.com (Christian Antkow) ,in message <vUf3uAhCBh107h@softchoice.c
om>, wrote:
> Seeing as how we've all been ranting about legal implications of
> EXE hacking, thought I'd introduce a breather and see if anyone knows
> when and where Heretic would be released (This IS December 1st...)
Hmm, I'll have to contact my friend who writes graphics drivers and borrow
it from him. He buys games just to see their graphics and then never plays
them afterwards, meaning I can probably borrow it :)
------------------------------
From: djr@infinet.com (Dan J. Rockwell)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 12:51:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: NOT modifying the EXE
>
> > "Tediouser and tediouser" - (from "through the windshield glass" if you
> > guys don't shut up)
> >
> > On another note, who has taken stabs at interpreting saved games since it
> > was last mentioned? I'm getting a little burned out on coding so I may just
> > take a few hours off this afternoon and play with octal dumps of saved games
> > from trivial levels.
>
> Modifying save game files is not permitted. Read your LICENCE.DOC; the
> only maps may be edited.
>
> Go ahead. Just try and modify a save game file, and id will sue your ass
> silly. In fact, I'd be surprised if the FBI isn't already on it's way to
> confiscate your computer.
>
> (The nerve of some people.)
>
Geeze take a pill pal. Yeah the FBI just arrived and looks like I'll do
10 years for playing with a save game file.
Look this whole debate is going no where FAST. Let's move on.
Dan Rockwell
------------------------------
From: Carbon-BasedLifeForm <decerman@ouray.Denver.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:01:32 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
On Thu, 1 Dec 1994, Dan J. Rockwell wrote:
> Agreed, we really shouldn't be complaining at all. Id didn't have to make
> Doom an open game system. But they did, and well now it seems we don't know
> which lines can and cannot be crossed. It's obvious that the EXE
> modification is a line that can't be crossed. Regardless of what we debate
> about, the EXE is the one thing, probably the only thing left that remains
> ID's baby. We've done everything else, we should take a step back and enjoy
> it.
So then what's the status of DeHackEd and all those great DEHs? Are they
suddenly illegal? Puhleez.
> ID would be crazy to change the marketing stragety now. With Quake I'm sure
> we'll find new lines to cross and not to cross, an ID will point them out as
> we go along.
I thought that we'd be able to modify every aspect of QUAKE, far more
than we can with DOOM. With QUAKE, it shouldn't even be necessary to
change the EXE because it'll be so maleable.
__ __
____ /\ \ /\ \ Dan Cerman
/ \ \ / \ \ _\ \ \ University of Colorado at Denver
/ /\ \_\ / /\ \ \ /\_\ \ \
\ \ \ | | \ \/ \_\ \ __ \_\ decerman@ouray.cudenver.edu
\ \/ |_| \ /\/_/ \ \ \/_/
\ / / \ \_\ \ \_\ QUAKE. The Big One hits in '95!
\/_/ \/_/ \/_/
------------------------------
From: johnsond@std.teradyne.com (Dean Johnson)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 11:14:11 PST
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
> >
> > Maybe ID is worried that our collective imagination and efforts will undercu
> > the future of their (no doubt lucrative) DOOM engine sales....?
>
> Hmmm good point, and it may be a driving force in their decision over the
> .EXE modification. But I must say, DOOM would not be as popular as it
> without our collective particapation.
>
I wonder if it's that their lawyers are worried about legally making
the distinction between acceptable doom.exe mods and unacceptable
ones. I'm not a lawyer but I believe that stuff like this has to be
pursued becasue if you're ever lax in protecting your patents (for
example) you can't change your mind and challenge someone with
infringement later on. Even if one infringement is greater than
another.
Again, I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm full of shit here.
- -Dean
------------------------------
From: rrward@netcom.com (Richard Ward)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 12:06:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
> > Just listen to yourselves, people! ID lets you rip open and edit one of the
> > best games ever (they even gave out source code to make it easier) and they
> > state that they don't allow _one_ kind of hacking and you all go off like a
> > bunch of spoiled kids who's toys have been taken away.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> Um, source code? Excuse me? Yeah, right.
> And we are spoiled, and our toys *have* been taken away.
Yes, source cade. Where do you think IDBSP came from? Back in the early days
(when not one editor could rebuild the NODES/BSP/REJECT structures correctly)
ID gave out the source code for their NODES/REJECT/BSP builder.
Maybe it's time for some to find new toys.
Richard
------------------------------
From: pbarone@rsa.hisd.harris.com (Philip Barone)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 15:21:17 -0500
Subject: How to edit the ".exe"
BTW, this is really not a question of how to edit doom.exe. I completely understand that when I am useing dehacked to modify the doom.exe file, that I am just going to a physical location, so many bytes from the beginning of the file and changeing some ones and zeros.
This location, for so many bytes, defines, for example, the Missile Damage. By changing this value in the file I can effect how much damage is inflicted.
I could make these changes with diskedit if I wanted to but who would do that when dehacked makes it so much easier all illegalities aside .
What I don't know and would like to see is some example "C" code that just:
- - reads a file and displays it in hex, with its offset, from the beginning the way diskedit does.
- - and maybe a subroutine that can write to the file at the given offset just like dehacked does.
What would be real nice is the source to a program that does this already that I can modify for the files that I want to hack.
(Whining endlessly) That's all I want.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Barone (Phil)
pbarone@rsa.hisd.harris.com
Phone : (407) 635-7763
FAX : (407) 635-7500
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Donovan Young <donovan@america.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 15:43:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Illegal stuff
Ok, enough of this 'Is DeHackEd illegal' crap. Greg (Tree), keep working
on it like you allways have. IMO, Jay's response was exactly what he
*HAS* to say -- several people have already made this point. If id had a
real problem with your util, you would have received an official 'warning'
from id and/or their lawyers telling your to cease and desist in your
efforts. Until you get something like that, keep up the great work!
Relax... take a pill. Don't sweat the small stuff. ;-)
Donovan Young (Conqueror on IRC)
Associate Member of Access America
SysOp of Cyberdyne Systems (404) 518-0157
------------------------------
From: Chainsaw Jim <jimu@point.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 15:45:26 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: How to edit the ".exe"
>
> This location, for so many bytes, defines, for example, the Missile Damage.
> By changing this value in the file I can effect how much damage is inflicted.
>
> I could make these changes with diskedit if I wanted to but who would do
> that when dehacked makes it so much easier all illegalities aside .
diskedit is an illegal doom exe modification utility. Possession of such
a utility is a voilation id's copyrights, and doom's licensing agreement.
You're knee deep in shit, Buddy. If you haven't been apprehended already by
the FBI/SPA, you'd better haul ass out of the country, like RIGHT NOW.
FYI, DEHACKED.EXE and DEBUG.COM are also illegal, as well as any other
hex editors. If you've got any of these, DELETE them before it's too late.
------------------------------
From: djr@infinet.com (Dan J. Rockwell)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:09:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: How to edit the ".exe"
>
> >
> > This location, for so many bytes, defines, for example, the Missile Damage.
> > By changing this value in the file I can effect how much damage is inflicted.
> >
> > I could make these changes with diskedit if I wanted to but who would do
> > that when dehacked makes it so much easier all illegalities aside .
>
> diskedit is an illegal doom exe modification utility. Possession of such
> a utility is a voilation id's copyrights, and doom's licensing agreement.
>
> You're knee deep in shit, Buddy. If you haven't been apprehended already by
> the FBI/SPA, you'd better haul ass out of the country, like RIGHT NOW.
>
> FYI, DEHACKED.EXE and DEBUG.COM are also illegal, as well as any other
> hex editors. If you've got any of these, DELETE them before it's too late.
>
>
Yeah and whatever you do, don't rename it either or they'll kill you for
sure!
------------------------------
From: Kevin Way <kway@omni.voicenet.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:30:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Illegal stuff
On Wed, 30 Nov 1994, C. Sheldon wrote:
> It seems to me that to make the "Hack" patches and similar
> utilities illegal, would really almost defeat the purpose of "Doom" for
> many people. For many people like me, "Doom" isn't just a game, its a
> Hobby; Creating, Editing, and Collecting, Pwads and patches is a "Hobby"
> for many of us. These Patches and Utilities are things we might not have
> ever seen. They aren't commercial, many are freeware, and a few are
> shareware. The "Majority" of people who create and use these are LOYAL
> iD fans...I for one have Purchased Doom, and Doom][....and you bet your
> ass if iD came out with a Doom add-on, i'd buy that too! And so would
> most of you...We're Hobbyists, we're not hackers. Would Lionel Train's
> ever deem it illegal for a Hobbyist to "Modify" their train engines?
> Never.
> DrWu
> One of the many #doom Ops
I agree totally. The rampant success of Doom is that is replayable,
again and again and again. You can create your own levels, edit the
weapons, make a complete overhaul and call it Aliens-TC....
Christ, John Romero even said "Aliens-TC rocks!" what has caused this
about face in iD policy?
I as with probably everyone else in this list have bought Doom and Doom
II, mainly because of the possibilities of new levels and add-ons.... I
find the iD is ignoring the source of their success... the edits! Where
would Doom be without new levels and deh patches? nowhere. I think they
forgot that.
- -Kevin.
------------------------------
From: Kevin Way <kway@omni.voicenet.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:35:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and modification in general
> I see the whole sales concept behind doom like a drug addiction....
iD themselves described Doom as herion-ware. The first one's free, but
if you want more....
- -Kevin
------------------------------
From: Salporin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:40:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
> 1) Id created a great game and allowed for significant access to it's
innards.
> 2) Hackers bought the game and modified it and in so doing caused increased
> sales of the game itself.
Quite the "chicken or the egg" effect, isn't it? :)
> It's
> really hard to say who's the good guy in a relationship of this kind. I'm
> inclined to describe it as mutually beneficial, there are no losers,
> everybody wins. In fact it only becomes an issue when there is a conflict
> and a conflict is what seems to be developing.
That's been me point of view as well. Neither us nor id gets screwed until
someone changes how things work. Maybe it was in the LICENSE.DOC all along,
but the guys at id never said anything about it elsewhere. When Jay told
Greg he couldn't modify the exe, he basically ruined the whole relationship
between id and the hackers as far as freedom goes.
> What would be really nice is if they could simply tell us, in some sly
> manner, if this is the case.
Like if they don't really mind editing of the exe, but are just covering
their asses, they post a message saying "The sun is hot in Texas today." If
they're serious about it, they just say, "Stop screwing with our program!"
:)
> Someone else suggested that id was worried about someone creating something
> like aliensTC and selling it as a whole seperate game. But once again this
> doesn't hurt id at all. To play TC you still need to have purchased DOOM
> first, therefore it stimulates the sale of DOOM if anything.
While this is true, suppose someone went to the extent of changing absolutely
EVERYTHING in the game except the very core engine, packaged it, and sold it
as a new game (like Heretic, only without id's consent). That's a worst-case
scenario, I know, but I suppose theoretically it COULD happen, and I think
that's what id's worried about.
------------------------------
From: Salporin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:40:32 -0500
Subject: Re: NOT modifying the EXE
> Go ahead. Just try and modify a save game file, and id will sue your ass
> silly. In fact, I'd be surprised if the FBI isn't already on it's way to
> confiscate your computer.
There've been save game editors out there since v.99. As a matter of fact, I
think they were the first DOOM editing utils to be released. id never said
anything about it, either. So will they now?
------------------------------
From: "Lachlan O'Dea" <lode2@fawlty5.eng.monash.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 1994 11:54:24 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Re: Illegal stuff
I've been lurking in this list for a while and since recent discussion
has had nothing to do with advanced DOOM editing, I feel qualified to add
my own uninformed opinion.
Here's a theory on why Jay said what he said. Every copy of DOOM sold
every has had LICENSE.DOC in the package, and LICENSE.DOC has always said
that "map" editing (judging by the stance of id, this actually means wad
editing) is ok, but editing the exe is not. This hardly leaves id any room
to move. If id were to say that modification of the exe was ok, they would
be contradicting their own license! Perhaps Jay was bound to say what he
did, regardless of what his real opinion was.
Despite the temptation, I won't get into the argument "will license.doc
hold up in court" or "is the use of DeHackEd a breach of copyright", as
these are things I know nothing about. In any case, it shouldn't take the
threat of legal action for us to abide by the wishes of id. They've been
good to us in the past, we should return the favour. Unfortunately this
means no more TCs, and I _love_ Aliens-TC :-(.
Finally, I wouldn't worry about id making their stuff closed in the
future. They're a bunch of cool and froody dudes down there... that's not
likely to change.
Don't worry, I won't be posting any more on this :-).
- -------------------------------
OS/2 Warp: Make it so.
Lachlan O'Dea
Member of Team OS/2
Internet: lode@ozemail.com.au
Compuserve ID: 100353,650
- -------------------------------
------------------------------
End of doom-editing-digest V1 #71
*********************************
