Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Doom Editing Digest Vol. 01 Nr. 070
From: owner-doom-editing-digest
To: doom-editing-digest@nvg.unit.no
Subject: doom-editing-digest V1 #70
Reply-To: doom-editing
Errors-To: owner-doom-editing-digest
Precedence: bulk
doom-editing-digest Thursday, 1 December 1994 Volume 01 : Number 070
Re: Illegal stuff
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: Illegal stuff
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: Illegal stuff
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Modifying DOOM(2).EXE
NOT modifying the EXE
Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
Re: NOT modifying the EXE
Re: NOT modifying the EXE
Re: Modifying DOOM(2).EXE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rprock@damage.com (Ray Prock)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 02:20:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Illegal stuff
>
> Yes, for "us" DOOM is a hoby but for ID it is their bread and butter and I
> think we need to remeber that and respect it. They have put very few
> restrictions on us as far as modifications go and I am willing to live within
> the rules. They could have acted like Apogee and flat out forbade _any_
> modifications of any kind.
>
> Richard
>
Unfortunate truth is, we're kinda burning out on the PWAD concept.
We now want *more*. We want to hack the .exe. Like someone else said,
I'm straddling the fence on this issue. I understand the reasons, I just
do not like them. I keep forgetting we are in America, where we are not
allowed to own anything. Hmmm, I wonder if the Chinese have any decent
Doom hacks.. :)
(wavy lines enter here, Wayne and Garth do the 'doo di doo' noise)
Quake comes out, and everyone's psyched. But, alas! The license.doc
forbids any unauthorized tampering. But, Borland comes out with the
'Quake Hacker's Tools'. Retailing for 600USD. This allows you to make your
own maps as well as change your player's colour. Now, the 'Quake Developer Kit'
will be released as sales decline on the 'Hacker's Tools'. This will be a
cool grandUSD, and allow for you to touch the executable.
It worked for Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: Salporin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 02:26:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
> Can they even think of not implementing the same kind of stragety in
> Quake? Oh it's be foolish. They'd be just another action game, buy it,
> beat it, get rid of it.
Maybe that's WHY they're doing this: we'll buy their game either way (at
least most of us will), so why should they let us edit it? They don't get
any money from our patches. Maybe our patches help promote the game and its
popularity, however. If that's the case, we'll see when Quake sells half as
many copies as DOOM.
------------------------------
From: rrward@netcom.com (Richard Ward)
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 23:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
>
> > Can they even think of not implementing the same kind of stragety in
> > Quake? Oh it's be foolish. They'd be just another action game, buy it,
> > beat it, get rid of it.
>
> Maybe that's WHY they're doing this: we'll buy their game either way (at
> least most of us will), so why should they let us edit it? They don't get
> any money from our patches. Maybe our patches help promote the game and its
> popularity, however. If that's the case, we'll see when Quake sells half as
> many copies as DOOM.
>
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
------------------------------
From: Matt Pepe <mpepe@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 01:38:35 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Illegal stuff
> Yes, for "us" DOOM is a hoby but for ID it is their bread and butter and
> I think we need to remeber that and respect it. They have put very few
> restrictions on us as far as modifications go and I am willing to live
> within the rules. They could have acted like Apogee and flat out forbade
> _any_ modifications of any kind.
> Richard
Excellent point. Agreed, we will lose the excellent conversions
such as Aliens T.C., but ID has to draw the line somewhere, and I believe
that we must respect their position.
With that said, now for a repetative query.. How long should
thist listserv take to unsubscribe? I'm leaving for the AF, and not being
able to read my mail (20+ per day, for 6 weeks) would not be kosher for
my sysadmin. hehe...
- - Matt | "If you can't make it good,
mpepe@nyx.cs.du.edu | make it LOOK good." - B Gates
------------------------------
From: Salporin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 03:52:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
> 1) ID has changed(for the worse)
>
> Point 1: ID is no longer the hacker company I fell in love with. I'm not
> sure at which point they became holier-than-thou. And it does scare
> me. Doom looked like this game that a bunch of hacks threw together
> during a bull session. It was raw, it was uncharacteristic of anything
> anyone has tried.
> And ID was this anarchistic crew who pulled it off.
> Now, I'm not putting ID down. They should be applauded for what
> they've accomplished. Part of the American Dream that I personally
> thought was a myth. Becoming a success isn't the problem.
> It's your attitude afterwards.
I completely agree. id has let their egos get the better of them. No
offense to them, but they're the object of all this newfound fame, creators
of an entire new genre of computer gaming, and, to put it bluntly, they've
let it get to their heads. The small company from Texas that made Commander
Keen and Wolfenstein 3D is dead; in its place is a mega-company that made
DOOM and dominates the industry and thus has to deal with all of the legal
hassles of a major company. When they were small and not as famous (yet just
as respected), they couldn't have cared less if we took their game, dissected
it, and posted what we found on large billboards across America. Now,
they're still respected, only they're extremely famous and receiving all this
praise (which is fine and dandy). The bottom line is, they suddenly found
themselves in the spotlight, and have to act as such. Which means when we do
things that other game companies would consider unheard-of, they must act as
these other game companies would: legal action. Inevitable? I don't think
so, but it's certainly starting to look like this is where we'll end up. Ever
y Matt Falk, Greg Lewis, and Raphael Quinet out there will find themselves
the target of id's lawyers. Who'll be the first to find themselves in legal
trouble? Is this what we want to happen? I highly doubt it. So I think we
definitely need to talk to id and sort this thing out once and for all,
before we all become paranoid and afraid of releasing ANY DOOM patch at all
for fear we might face legal trouble.
------------------------------
From: S.Benner@lancaster.ac.uk (Steve Benner)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 12:04:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
> So I think we
>definitely need to talk to id and sort this thing out once and for all,
>before we all become paranoid and afraid of releasing ANY DOOM patch at all
>for fear we might face legal trouble.
This is getting totally out of hand. Read your LICENCE.DOC. It makes it
quite clear what can and cannot be done legally. It makes it quite clear
what Id's policy has been FROM THE OUTSET. Editing maps is legal. Making
tools for the editing of maps is legal. Making money out of maps is NOT
legal with entering into further agreements with id, etc. We are NOT
seeing any changes of attitude or hardening of policy in Jay's recent
correspondence. For Chrissake, you guys, get REAL. Get on with your WADs
and stop whining, please. Or if you must whine, do it on the newsgroups,
please. ;)
- -Steve
------------------------------
From: ffjjd@aurora.alaska.edu
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 03:59:25 +0000
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
>I completely agree. id has let their egos get the better of them. No
>offense to them, but they're the object of all this newfound fame, creators
>of an entire new genre of computer gaming, and, to put it bluntly, they've
>let it get to their heads. The small company from Texas that made Commander
>Keen and Wolfenstein 3D is dead; in its place is a mega-company that made
>DOOM and dominates the industry and thus has to deal with all of the legal
>hassles of a major company. When they were small and not as famous (yet just
>as respected), they couldn't have cared less if we took their game, dissected
>it, and posted what we found on large billboards across America. Now,
>they're still respected, only they're extremely famous and receiving all this
>praise (which is fine and dandy). The bottom line is, they suddenly found
>themselves in the spotlight, and have to act as such. Which means when we do
>things that other game companies would consider unheard-of, they must act as
>these other game companies would: legal action. Inevitable? I don't think
>so, but it's certainly starting to look like this is where we'll end up. Ever
>y Matt Falk, Greg Lewis, and Raphael Quinet out there will find themselves
>the target of id's lawyers. Who'll be the first to find themselves in legal
>trouble? Is this what we want to happen? I highly doubt it. So I think we
>definitely need to talk to id and sort this thing out once and for all,
>before we all become paranoid and afraid of releasing ANY DOOM patch at all
>for fear we might face legal trouble.
This truly is a nasty quagmire of an issue. Here are some facts.
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.
It's difficult therefore to determine who is benefitting who the most. Is
id being cooler for letting us play with their game or are hackers being
cooler by creating add-ons which cause their game to sell better? 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.
So the question then is, why is there a conflict?
Someone in one of the earlier posts suggested that id was covering their
ass in case a lawsuit came down from Warner Brothers (or whoever) regarding
infringement of one of their movie titles. I don't know how probable this
is but it indeed would be cause for concern for our favorite gang of Texans
and it may be their motivation for all this. If they want to see their
ferraris vanish real quick all they need to do is get into a legal
entanglement with a large American corporation. Their millions, which look
sizable to us right now, would be instantly dwarfed and they'd be
hitchhiking back and forth from court every day.
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're simply taking protective legal measures or if Wilbur is really
saying "stop screwing with our program". From what he wrote to Greg Lewis,
my thought is that he is taking a legal precaution and doesn't really want
to screw those who have helped them for so long. But what is Greg supposed
to do, ignore these scary letters and just move forward as if nothing has
been said? He has now been directly told by the CEO of the company that he
can't do what he's doing. Legally speaking he'd have been better off if he
hadn't asked the question in the first place at least then he could have
said he didn't think it was illegal.
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. If Justin had
charged for TC he would have made some money but id wouldn't have lost any.
id might not see it this way (I don't know how they see it) but that's how
it appears to me.
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
------------------------------
From: rprock@damage.com (Ray Prock)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:20:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
>
> >
> > > Can they even think of not implementing the same kind of stragety in
> > > Quake? Oh it's be foolish. They'd be just another action game, buy it,
> > > beat it, get rid of it.
> >
> > Maybe that's WHY they're doing this: we'll buy their game either way (at
> > least most of us will), so why should they let us edit it? They don't get
> > any money from our patches. Maybe our patches help promote the game and its
> > popularity, however. If that's the case, we'll see when Quake sells half as
> > many copies as DOOM.
> >
>
> 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.
------------------------------
From: Ed Phillips <flaregun@udel.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:29:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Illegal stuff
On Wed, 30 Nov 1994, Richard Ward wrote:
> True, but for every modified "train engine" that you create (and maybe seel or
> give away, etc...) you have to _buy_ a new one. I think Aliens_TC is what
> kicked it over the fence. They saw what _one_ person (whith a lot of time and
> talent) could do with their engine. They may have decided to put their foot
> down before any "less than honorable" folks out there took DOOM.EXE and
> patched it so much that it behaved like a new game (like Heretic), slapped in
> some new grahics and sound and sold the whole mess as a new game.
I agree. We don't want to condone stealing DOOM.EXE, twiddling
with is, and selling it as a new game. But as long as we buy our own
standard "train engine" (which we need anyway, because it's really neat
in its own right), some people may want to tinker with it to "soup" it
up, make it look different, etc. We have the right to "soup up" our
train engine, we probably have the right to sell a book with plans/parts
to "soup" it up, we don't have the right to modify DOOM.EXE (according to
the sources presented to this list),... so it would follow that we don't
really have the right to sell/give-away plans/software to "soup" up
DOOM.EXE. It's nice that they gave us the ability to make an endless
fountain of new maps. Maybe one of the sucessors of DOOM will take all
of but the code out of DOOM.EXE in order to allow the kind of complete
control the this "hobby" has made everyone hungry for! We certainly know
that ID has the right idea... but how could they have known it from the
beginning planning stages?
Ed
/****************************************************************************/
/* Ed Phillips flaregun@udel.edu University of Delaware */
/* Jr Systems Programmer (302) 831-6082 IT/Network and Systems Services */
/****************************************************************************/
------------------------------
From: djr@infinet.com (Dan J. Rockwell)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 09:36:43 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
>
> >
> > > Can they even think of not implementing the same kind of stragety in
> > > Quake? Oh it's be foolish. They'd be just another action game, buy it,
> > > beat it, get rid of it.
> >
> > Maybe that's WHY they're doing this: we'll buy their game either way (at
> > least most of us will), so why should they let us edit it? They don't get
> > any money from our patches. Maybe our patches help promote the game and its
> > popularity, however. If that's the case, we'll see when Quake sells half as
> > many copies as DOOM.
> >
>
> 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
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.
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.
It's strange though how this EXE debate has really ignited the fires of
creativity among the group. Why now, does ID sudddenly draw the line? Was
it becasue DOOM2 has been release, Aliens TC, etc ? Thats whats really
interesting to me.
Editing question: (we should get back to editing)
Can anyone reccomend any good wads that show the use of switches
that can be turned on/off by firing at them? Or document files.
Dan Rockwell
------------------------------
From: asre@uiuc.edu (Scott Coleman)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 15:53:09 +0100
Subject: Modifying DOOM(2).EXE
In scanning the zillion or so messages in this thread, I found one post
(sorry, forgot who the owner of this voice of reason was ;-) which
summed the situation up nicely: Hacking the EXE is basically producing a
derivative work from id's program, and this is prohibited under the
copyright laws of the United States unless you can secure permission
from the copyright holder (i.e. Jay Wilbur). He has seen fit to deny
such permission. Thus, it *is* illegal for anyone to produce these
derivative works, whether they distribute the modified EXE or not. All
the armchair lawyers in the audience, feel free to debate the legality
of shrinkwrap licensing, or whether hacking an EXE constitutes a
derivative work - after all, it won't be YOU sitting on the witness
stand if id decides to sue. ;-)
The real questions are these:
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?
Personally, hacking the frame tables with dehacked was never more than a
mild curiosity with me. My officemates and I did play one deathmatch
with modified plasma balls (we set them to move at the slowest speed so
players could set up "plasma minefields" for other players to stumble
into). It was neat, but coordinating such changes on a regular basis to
play Internet DOOM (as is now my staple) would be more hassle than it is
worth, so I just don't bother. I play a lot of Internet DEATHMATCHes,
and not once has someone suggested playing a "dehacked" DEATHMATCH, so I
assume that the same holds for others besides myself.
I don't want to me misconstrued - I have a lot of respect for Tree's
hacking ability, and he utterly destroys me in deathmatch (;-), but I
think that perhaps he should consider withdrawing dehacked from active
distribution, if for no other reason than to keep id happy. The
information on how to implement a utility like this is already out
there, so there's nothing id or anyone else can do to stop the EXE
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. Hell, if id complained about my RanDOOM utility, I'd
withdraw it in a minute. It's not like these things are ESSENTIAL for
keeping DOOM "alive" and continually interesting - nobody asks me to play
RanDOOMized DEATHMATCHes, either - they are merely cool hacks. IMHO, id
isn't being unreasonable, and is fully within their rights. Why should
we start having problems respecting id's wishes NOW, over something so
relatively minor?
As a final though, remember that Quake is just around the corner (mid
'95?). At that time, people will jump from DOOM to Quake and all this
will be rendered moot. ;-)
- --
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 10:20:29 EST
Subject: 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.
------------------------------
From: Greg Lewis <gregl@umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:39:17 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Modifying the exe and mod...
> This is getting totally out of hand. Read your LICENCE.DOC. It makes it
> quite clear what can and cannot be done legally. It makes it quite clear
> what Id's policy has been FROM THE OUTSET. Editing maps is legal. Making
> tools for the editing of maps is legal. Making money out of maps is NOT
> legal with entering into further agreements with id, etc.
Thisis another point I made to Jay. The LICENSE.DOC file says map
editors and maps only. How about dmaud? dmgraph? They're certainly not
map editors, they play with other elements in the WAD file. Same with
DeuTex (to some degree) and others. We can't use the "strict" definition
of legality from the LICENSE.DOC without excluding those utilities. A
lot of the Dooming population has taken "map editing" to mean "WAD
editing in general" without specifically being told it. Then, some of us
start taking "WAD editing in general" to mean "data editing in general",
look for the data in the exe, and get shot down. It's a bad case of us
(end-users) assuming too much, and Id (the producer) not being explicit
enough, or not backing up their restrictions. <sigh>
Greg Lewis
Author, DeHackEd
------------------------------
From: Chainsaw Jim <jimu@point.cs.uwm.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 10:04:55 -0600 (CST)
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.)
------------------------------
From: S.Benner@lancaster.ac.uk (Steve Benner)
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 94 16:24:23 GMT
Subject: Re: NOT modifying the EXE
Chainsaw Jim said
>
>Modifying save game files is not permitted. Read your LICENCE.DOC; the
>only maps may be edited.
>
We don't wanna change 'em. Just know what stops 'em from saving is all!
Not too much to ask, surely? ;)
- -Steve
------------------------------
From: Greg Lewis <gregl@umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 11:28:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Modifying DOOM(2).EXE
> 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. Crossing the line of "abiding by Id's
wishes" though is a bit more sticky. 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.
> Personally, hacking the frame tables with dehacked was never more than a
> mild curiosity with me. I play a lot of Internet DEATHMATCHes,
> and not once has someone suggested playing a "dehacked" DEATHMATCH, so I
> assume that the same holds for others besides myself.
The main use for DHE (AFAIK) is for single person "messing around" and
such, and (mostly) for using the so called super weapons. A friend and I
have played with several patches for coop and deathmatch doom, but it's
easy for us simply because we play net/ipxdoom. Transferring files for
idoom is too much of a hassle. Try taking all the monster hitpoints
times 10, throwing in super weapons, and then do map 27 2-player coop
nightmare and try to survive. It's fun!
> I don't want to me misconstrued - I have a lot of respect for Tree's
> hacking ability, and he utterly destroys me in deathmatch (;-), but I
> think that perhaps he should consider withdrawing dehacked from active
> distribution, if for no other reason than to keep id happy. The
> information on how to implement a utility like this is already out
> there, so there's nothing id or anyone else can do to stop the EXE
> 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).
Greg Lewis
Author, DeHackEd
------------------------------
End of doom-editing-digest V1 #70
*********************************
