Incorrect licensing information for games on site

[MrFlibble]

I've noticed that some games that are listed as freeware have dubious or outright incorrect information:

Jazz Jackrabbit: Holiday Hare

This game was originally released under a freeware license.

The game download (jazzxmas.zip) includes a license file (LICENSE.DOC) which states:

Epic MegaGames allows and encourages all bulletin board systems and online
services to distribute this game by modem as long as no files are altered
or removed. If a distribution fee is charged for this software, you must
additionally ensure that:

A. Epic MegaGames is credited as the publisher of the file.
B. The file is identified as shareware.
C. The shareware concept is explained adequately elsewhere online.
D. You charge less than $9 for downloading this shareware program.

[emphasis added]

Nowhere does the license state that the game is freeware.

It is also worth noting that the archive contains ordering forms to get the registered version of Jazz Jackrabbit, and there is ordering information accessible in-game via the main menu, similar to the regular Jazz shareware version.

Jazz Jackrabbit: Holiday Hare 1995

This game was originally released under a freeware license.

The game download (jjxmas95.zip) includes a license file (LICENSE.DOC) which states:

Limited Distribution License:

Epic authorizes distribution and/or copying of the Program only in
accordance with the following terms and conditions (the "General Terms and
Conditions") and with other terms and conditions set forth below that may
be applicable:

1. Epic MegaGames, Inc. shall be credited as the owner of the Program
in all distribution of the Program (which shall include, without
limitation, packaging, documentation, catalogs, program descriptions,
advertising, promotion and public relations).

2. The Program shall be identified by name and shall be expressly
identified as shareware (and not identified or described as "free
software", "public domain software", or the like) in all distribution.

3. The shareware concept shall be explained in reasonable detail in all
distribution (shareware is "try-before-you-buy" software, and the
price paid by users (if any) is a distribution charge only).

[emphasis added]

So in case of this game the claim about the freeware license is not only wrong, but also in violation of p. 2 of the actual license as provided with the game.

Xmas Lemmings: 1991 Christmas Edition

DMA Design originally released this game under a freeware license.

There is no license file included with this release. The README.TXT refers to is as a demo:

This is a demonstration version of the forthcoming game 'Oh NO More Lemmings'
from Psygnosis. It is a four level taster, supporting the ega and vga display
adapters and may be played with a mouse, joystick or keyboard. The keys used
within this demo are as follows :-

<...>

Lemmings Demo requires 512k of memory and either CGA or EGA/VGA display adaptor
with at least 256k of Video memory. Mouse driver must be installed before
starting Lemmings before Mouse can be used within the game.

The main menu screen also calls it a demo. This likely explains the absence of any license as demos usually were supposed to be copied in an unrestricted manner.

Xmas Lemmings: 1992 Holiday Edition

DMA Design originally released this game under a freeware license.

Similar to the above, there is no license file of any kind to be found with this release. The readme also calls it a demo:

This is a 4-level demonstration of Lemmings, a unique mind-boggling game of
adventure, romance and salvation. If you are interested in purchasing the
full game, which includes 120 levels of irresistably challenging game play,
contact your local dealer, or Psygnosis at the number below.

As does the title/menu screen.

[DOSGuy]

Those Jazz Jackrabbit licenses kind of break the site. I updated their status to list them as shareware per Epic's demands, but listed them as "fully playable". As you pointed out, the registration form isn't for Holiday Hare/Holiday Hare 1995, but for Jazz Jackrabbit. Because the Holiday Hare games were playable as standalone games, I had listed them as separate games. Listing them as shareware indicates that you're supposed to pay to play those games, which isn't the case. They were created to promote Jazz Jackrabbit, which is the game that's actually shareware. Listing freeware games as shareware because of those licenses gives a false impression of their status, so I guess they can't be listed as separate games any more. I'll have to fold them into Jazz Jackrabbit and put them in the Extras section.

Likewise for the Xmas Lemmings games, I list them as freeware because that's how they were distributed, but they were intended as demos for Oh No! More Lemmings -- which is isn't currently on the site because there was never a demo version of that game. Well, I guess there was! Xmas Lemmings: 1991 Christmas Edition features two original levels and two levels modified from Oh No! More Lemmings to have a Christmas theme, so it actually is a demo for Oh No! More Lemmings. I'll have to merge them into a new entry for Oh No! More Lemmings, but it's weird because it won't include a true demo of Oh No! More Lemmings. Of course, then you can debate whether or not Oh No! More Lemmings is actually a separate game from Lemmings. It's technically an expansion, but there was a way to play it standalone without a copy of the original game.

Now I'm checking out Jetpack Christmas Special! and SkyRoads Xmas Special, and every other game that had a fully-playable standalone version to see if it can actually be listed as a separate game, or if the authors intended it to be a playable demo for the original game. There's going to be less games on the site when I'm done, though not less downloads.

[MrFlibble]

Those Jazz Jackrabbit licenses kind of break the site. I updated their status to list them as shareware per Epic's demands, but listed them as "fully playable". As you pointed out, the registration form isn't for Holiday Hare/Holiday Hare 1995, but for Jazz Jackrabbit. Because the Holiday Hare games were playable as standalone games, I had listed them as separate games. Listing them as shareware indicates that you're supposed to pay to play those games, which isn't the case. They were created to promote Jazz Jackrabbit, which is the game that's actually shareware.

This is not how I understand the issue.

These two games are in no way different from any regular shareware episode. They're just extra episodes that can be played without the full game. Same as any other Apogee model shareware title. In fact, early games that were published like this all came with separate binaries for each episode, and no one was confused by this to the best of my knowledge.

What about Rise of the Triad: The H.U.N.T. Begins? It's a complete episode that is not part of the campaign in the registered game, Rise of the Triad: Dark War (you can play it, but only as a custom level set). Following your logic, Dark War would have to bee listed as a shareware game with no playable shareware version, and The H.U.N.T. Begins as a "freeware" game?

Back in the 90s, "freeware" apparently had some very different connotations compared to the meaning that you put into the word. And to be honest, some of these hold today, as far as I understand it. Jazz Jackrabbit is a copyrighted character, and the game code is proprietary. I do now know if the Christmas episodes are actually part of the registered game (can't you play at least one of them in the shareware version 1.3?), but I don't think there is a fundamental difference between downloading the shareware episode 1 and playing it as a stand-alone application, and downloading the holiday shareware episode X and playing it as a stand-alone application. Both are stand-alone only because otherwise you'd not be able to play it without the full game (which kind of defeats the purpose), not because these particular Christmas releases have more in common with a FOSS or freeware game like Secret Maryo Chronices or Giana's Return, than with the original shareware episode 1.

Listing freeware games as shareware because of those licenses gives a false impression of their status, so I guess they can't be listed as separate games any more. I'll have to fold them into Jazz Jackrabbit and put them in the Extras section.

I do not understand how marking these games as shareware produces a "false impression of their status".

If you define "freeware" as anything that can be freely distributed, then the regular shareware episodes are also "freeware"?

How I understand it, "shareware" is not some property of a game/download itself, it's a distribution model that implies that some part of the game is made available at no cost to users, who are encouraged to further distribute it on similar terms. Whichever part exactly -- one level or a(n almost) complete game -- is of secondary importance. The user is expected to "register" the game to upgrade to full status, wherein the entire game and/or additional bonuses become available.

Conversely, a true "freeware" game is a no-strings-attached complete game (at least, complete in the sense that the developer is not holding back anything from you -- but it might be a WIP version 0.009 for example) which the user is allowed to receive and distribute at no cost, can share with anyone and is not expected to make any payment for to play, although the author may receive optional donations or the like.

Also I don't remember any real freeware game that would have a list of contents from another, copyrighted game, but if I picked something it would tell me to purchase that game. That's definitely not freeware game behaviour here:

Likewise for the Xmas Lemmings games, I list them as freeware because that's how they were distributed

I think this is a flawed definition of "freeware". No demo of Lemmings that I know of contains any explicit EULA that would explain distribution terms, except for the so-called "Covox Lemmings" demo which was bundled with Covox sound hardware -- this one explicitly states that the demo is for Covox card users, which I guess means no distribution to others. The same goes for the Lemmings, Jr. version which came with some magazine or hint book ("This special version of Lemmings is only available to owners of the Official Lemmings Companion from Prima Publishing"). This however has not prevented people from copying both special versions as they will, along with every other Lemmings demo that there is (more on that below).

So if you define "freeware" as anything that is known to have been copied in the past without legal repercussions, I believe this is no different from the common definition of "abandonware", which you reject in favour of your own invented meaning for the term.

Since there is no proper EULA in any Lemmings demo, I believe that they (with the exception of the two special versions mentioned above) may be distributed under what I call the "demo exception": that is, demo versions were generally intended to be passed around, so if there is no explicit warning that prohibits such distribution, it is allowed.

However, the "demo exception" has no legal standing, unlike the shareware license as those found in Jack Jackrabbit releases. The demos are still copyrighted material, and at any time the legal copyright owners may demand to take them down because their distribution constitutes copyright infringement. Something like that cannot happen to true freeware games, barring some drastic change to copyright law.

but they were intended as demos for Oh No! More Lemmings -- which is isn't currently on the site because there was never a demo version of that game.

Oh, but there is a demo of Oh No! More Lemmings: onmldemo.zip

Also note that from what I know, no demos of Lemmings games before 3D Lemmings were originally available as downloads, certainly not from Psygnonsis website/FTP. What we have probably comes from early gaming magazine coverdisks (floppies), which I guess were copied freely among users, but again, this is ambiguous in the absence of straightforward EULA terms.

[DOSGuy]

I had thought of Holiday Hare and Holiday Hare 1995 as being standalone games because they weren't levels in Jazz Jackrabbit. As you noted, and as I had already noted in the review, Holiday Hare was added as Episode X in Jazz Jackrabbit v1.3. That rendered Holiday Hare unambiguously an additional shareware demo of Jazz Jackrabbit, so it shouldn't have been listed as a separate game. Although Holiday Hare 1995 is not a level in Jazz Jackrabbit, the license leads me to include it as an extra download for Jazz Jackrabbit as well.

What I was trying to say about the license is that shareware is "try before you buy". The author forbids listing Holiday Hare 1995 as freeware and mandates that it be listed as shareware because they want you to register the game. The game that you are trying before you buy when you play Holiday Hare 1995 is Jazz Jackrabbit. To list it as a separate game and list it as shareware suggests that the author wants you to register Holiday Hare 1995 when, in fact, they want you to register Jazz Jackrabbit; you can't buy Holiday Hare 1995. Based on this, I consider Holiday Hare 1995 to be a playable demo of Jazz Jackrabbit and not a separate game.

For the record, I don't define freeware as "anything that can be freely distributed". I define the three legal status as follows:

Shareware: Try before you buy. Free to distribute, but not free in any other sense of the word.
Freeware: Nothing to buy. This game is free, but the author retains all rights. (Free, not libre. Free as in "free beer".)
Public domain: Nothing to buy. The game is free, and the author has released their copyright into the public domain. (Libre. Free as in freedom.)

Thanks for the link to the demo for Oh No! More Lemmings!

[MrFlibble]

That rendered Holiday Hare unambiguously an additional shareware demo of Jazz Jackrabbit, so it shouldn't have been listed as a separate game.

Why do you call it a "demo" (I noticed that now both downloads are called "Episode X demo" on the Jazz Jackrabbit page)? Neither holiday episode is labelled a demo anywhere inside each programme, upon exit to DOS, in the supplied documentation or on their respective download pages. In fact, "Special Christmas Edition" seems like the most used phrase by which Epic refers to these releases.

What I was trying to say about the license is that shareware is "try before you buy". The author forbids listing Holiday Hare 1995 as freeware and mandates that it be listed as shareware because they want you to register the game. The game that you are trying before you buy when you play Holiday Hare 1995 is Jazz Jackrabbit. To list it as a separate game and list it as shareware suggests that the author wants you to register Holiday Hare 1995 when, in fact, they want you to register Jazz Jackrabbit; you can't buy Holiday Hare 1995. Based on this, I consider Holiday Hare 1995 to be a playable demo of Jazz Jackrabbit and not a separate game.

I think you're trying to make things more complicated than they are. First off, it's your site and you decide whether anything gets a separate page or not. But since you decided not to split Tyrian and Tyrian 2000, even though these have different titles and different publishers, then I guess it's more consistent to merge the Jazz Jackrabbit pages.

Again you for some reason call Holiday Hare 1995 a demo, even though each of the free episodes is that, an episode from a shareware game. I haven't played any of the free portions of JJ to completion but I believe they all have a boss and a proper ending, consistent with the Apogee model where each episode is essentially a small game, playable from start to finish with no limitations.

BTW, Jazz Jackrabbit is now sold at GOG so you might want to add that information:
https://www.gog.com/game/jazz_jackrabbit_collection
https://www.gog.com/game/jazz_jackrabbit_2_collection

For the record, I don't define freeware as "anything that can be freely distributed". I define the three legal status as follows:

Shareware: Try before you buy. Free to distribute, but not free in any other sense of the word.
Freeware: Nothing to buy. This game is free, but the author retains all rights. (Free, not libre. Free as in "free beer".)
Public domain: Nothing to buy. The game is free, and the author has released their copyright into the public domain. (Libre. Free as in freedom.)

Well then, the term freeware was applied incorrectly to the Christmas releases of Lemmings because they all explicitly state that they are demonstrations of some commercial Lemmings game (so not "Nothing to buy").

Your classification also does not account for the distinction between shareware and commercial distribution models, which I guess is the reason why so many downloads are labelled "shareware demo" while they're not really that. While "shareware demo" is not an oxymoron, not every shareware release actually counts as a demo, even though technically they all serve the "demonstration" purpose. My firm belief, which I have expressed here before, is that the original developers' and publishers' nomenclature should have priority over any other definitions.

If you want to correctly represent the PC videogame market situation back in the 90s then shareware vs. commercial is an important concept. Perhaps the most glaring example so far is that you label the demo of Hexen a "Shareware Demo", even though, as I have pointed out before, the supplied README.TXT clearly states:

You seem to treat the notion of "shareware" as some kind of property of the releases that could be distributed under the shareware concept - so if it's a free program that advertises a paid game by allowing the user to play some of it, and can be spread freely, it's "shareware". But how I understand the issue, shareware is (or rather, was) a marketing model distinct from commercial, or retail, games, in such a way that the two were almost completely separate market segments. And the property of being shareware applies to the entire game, not just to the free parts.

One of the distinctive features of shareware, which you can easily infer from any license, is that the unregistered shareware episodes were allowed to be sold for a pittance by shareware vendors. Almost every shareware license has provisions for that, up to the maximum price of such copies. Note that producing these physical shareware copies was entirely up to the vendor, who would generate small revenue from these sales without owing royalties to shareware developers and publishers. I don't believe any demo version of a commercial game could be sold like that. Of course there were retail demo versions, like the one for Stonekeep, but this was more because back then it was not possible to make a demo this large available as a download. And at any rate, retail demo CDs were made by the publisher of the main commercial version, not random vendors.

For an illustration of how the shareware and commercial market segments were separate from one another, consider the example of Doom. The first game was marketed as shareware by id Software themselves, but owing to its tremendous success, Doom II was released as a retail/commercial game which was sold in stores in retail boxes. GT Interactive later made a commercial re-release of Doom as The Ultimate Doom with a new extra episode to spice things up. Meaning that on the commercial game arena, Doom II appeared before the first game. Notably, id Software released a free downloadable upgrade so that their original shareware customers could get the new content and updates from The Ultimate Dom without having to purchase the retail copy.

Here's some nice narrative about this by Clint Basinger (don't you just love listening to that guy's voice).

The same story happened with Heretic, except its commercial, non-shareware sequel was Hexen, a more different game. The upgrade to Shadow of the Serpent Riders was also released as a free download for all owners of the original registered Heretic.

In short, it is not correct to label any public demo of a game as "shareware" unless you have some reasonable grounds for that, like supplied documentation or information from official sources which unambiguously denotes said game as shareware. So for example, none of the Lemmings games are called shareware by Psygnosis, and there is no evidence that they were sold on the shareware market, so calling the Lemmings demo "Shareware" is nothing short of misnomer.

[DOSGuy]

Yes, I was incorrect to list the Lemmings Xmas/Holiday games as freeware. Again, the thinking at the time was that you couldn't buy those games. I wasn't thinking of them in terms of being playable demos for a different game. I now believe that they should not be listed as separate games and will merge them into their parent games.

You're right that I should list the Holiday Hares as shareware episodes rather than demos. I wasn't thinking or caring enough about the meaning of "demo" when I merged them. I think that a shareware episode is a demonstration of the larger game, but I try to use the same terminology that the publisher used.

My firm belief, which I have expressed here before, is that the original developers' and publishers' nomenclature should have priority over any other definitions.

The problem with that is that every publisher uses different nomenclature, so there would be no consistency across the site. I'll try to use their nomenclature with regard to shareware "episode" versus "demo" in the download description, but I'm not going to stop referring to freely distributable demos as shareware. If you can share it, and it lets you try before you buy, then it's shareware regardless of how the publisher describes it.

I accept that a playable demo for a commercial game is technically not shareware; shareware is a distribution model that differs from the commercial model. The problem is that a distinction based on distribution models isn't helpful for what I'm using these terms to convey: price. The point of making a clear and color-coded distinction is to encourage visitors to pay for the full/registered/commercial version of the game after they've tried the free part. For simplicity's and understandability's sake, I'm declaring that the entire game is shareware if any part of it was released under a "try before you buy" model, whether the publisher calls it a trial, demo, shareware episode, or some other synonym for "free to try and redistribute". The term doesn't get used much any more, but when there's a freely distributable playable demo of a commercial game, that game is following the try-before-you-buy concept that was the foundation of the shareware model. In practice, the term was mostly used by games that didn't have a commercial release -- that is to say, when the game wasn't sold in stores. Shareware tended to be purchased directly from the publisher. I don't want to have to create a distinction for games that were sold commercially versus those that could only be purchased directly from the publisher so, for the purposes of this site, any game that had a "try before you buy" option will be considered "shareware". We already subdivide shareware into fully playable and partially playable. Holiday Hare 1995 is the less common example of a shareware episode that isn't actually part of the full game. Maybe that's a distinction worth noting with a third subcategory, but I'm not going to bother for now.

[MrFlibble]

You're right that I should list the Holiday Hares as shareware episodes rather than demos. I wasn't thinking or caring enough about the meaning of "demo" when I merged them. I think that a shareware episode is a demonstration of the larger game, but I try to use the same terminology that the publisher used.

The problem with that is that every publisher uses different nomenclature, so there would be no consistency across the site. I'll try to use their nomenclature with regard to shareware "episode" versus "demo" in the download description

Thanks!

I'm not going to stop referring to freely distributable demos as shareware. If you can share it, and it lets you try before you buy, then it's shareware regardless of how the publisher describes it.

I accept that a playable demo for a commercial game is technically not shareware; shareware is a distribution model that differs from the commercial model. The problem is that a distinction based on distribution models isn't helpful for what I'm using these terms to convey: price.

I gave a further thought to the previous discussion and I'd like to point out that your description of download types as "Legal status" seems not entirely correct to me. Your own definitions as you gave in the previous post, and this statement I just quoted, suggests that you classify downloads chiefly based on whether there is some paid content or not.

a. Without claiming any expertise in copyright law, I'd imagine that the only "legal" distinction is proprietary versus non-proprietary software. The former is protected by copyright law, i.e. any violation of software license is theoretically punishable by law.

b. Whether a game is purchased or obtained for free has no bearing on the legality of such transactions. Here's a fine example: you can purchase the game Seven Kingdoms here, but you can also download the free open source version here (it's the complete game, not just a source port). Both ways of obtaining the game are 100% legal.

c. The distribution of a piece of software is ultimately governed by the license attached to it. It is true that license restrictions are often implemented in order to protect the interests of software sellers, but this does not make it generally true for all cases.

Remember the game Evasive Action? The author made the full game freeware, but forbade third parties to redistribute it, with which request you and others complied. Now the author's site is down and the file was not preserved by the Wayback Machine (what wonders!) so the full game is technically lost (I assume someone has a copy but I can't be bothered to look for it).

So when you're looking at any game that you offer for download, the right question would not be, "Is it legal for the users to download it?" (as your classification by "legal status" seems to suggest), but rather, "Am I, as the website owner, allowed by the license to distribute this game and make it available for download?"

I'd say that the illegality of "abandonware" actually does not lie in the fact that such websites give free downloads of games that are, or were, or could be sold by rightful owners. Rather, that they distribute these games in a way not provided for or outright forbidden by the respective software licenses/EULAs.

If you look at the problem from this perspective, you have a very clear difference between commercial game demos and shareware games. The former very rarely have a specific license. As you state yourself, there are no guidelines with Lemmings demos nor with many others. At present I can think of just two examples of a clearly demo that states something about distribution terms: Tomb Raider and Blackthorne. Actually the latter also openly states that the game is not shareware, like Hexen:

Conversely, most shareware games have a license with them that very clearly states the terms under which you may or may not distribute these versions, free of charge or otherwise.

I'm not even talking about the demo versions which apparently have the license from the full game. Ever looked in the license that comes with the demo of Axia -- I should note here that I would classify the distribution model for this game as shareware, but the free versions is called the demo by developers. No contradiction here in my book. BUT, the license supplied there appears to be the full version's license. Anything from EA also has license text with clauses that go like "no part of this software may be copied without written permission" etc.

However, without distribution guidelines in the license, if a game is designated as "shareware" and "freeware" by its authors (e.g. this obscure little platform/shooter title), then this is a good positive indicator for free distribution.

The point of making a clear and color-coded distinction is to encourage visitors to pay for the full/registered/commercial version of the game after they've tried the free part. For simplicity's and understandability's sake, I'm declaring that the entire game is shareware if any part of it was released under a "try before you buy" model, whether the publisher calls it a trial, demo, shareware episode, or some other synonym for "free to try and redistribute". <...> for the purposes of this site, any game that had a "try before you buy" option will be considered "shareware". We already subdivide shareware into fully playable and partially playable.

I think that for the purposes of the site, it is sufficient to simply mark fully free stuff as green. If it's not green or red, then you don't get the full game for free. That alone should be a good colour-coded indicator for the users.

Of course, I feel obliged to point out that, from the user's perspective, there is a difference between Apogee model shareware and many demo versions. Any Apogee model shareware episode is, for all intents and purposes, a complete game, even if relatively short. It may have limitations, such as not all enemies, weapons, items etc. are present, but it is functionally intact otherwise. Conversely, many commercial demos are actually crippleware, with some or many core game functions disabled, like no option to save or load the game, no multiplayer or the like. This is obviously done to reduce the replay value and only give a taste of the game to get the user interested in buying the full version.

Truly, some demos give you a good chunk of gameplay and don't cripple core functions, as in Descent II or Powerslave demos. Also true is that not a few games marketed as shareware have demo-like limitations or very restricted content (e.g. only one level in Terroid shareware). But the general rule of thumb is that a shareware episode is a complete free game, while many demos, not so much.

Holiday Hare 1995 is the less common example of a shareware episode that isn't actually part of the full game. Maybe that's a distinction worth noting with a third subcategory, but I'm not going to bother for now.

As I noted before, this is not the only example. Both Rise of the Triad, Warcraft II and StarCraft shareware versions (officially called shareware) contain exclusive levels not found in the respective full games. If you count in the trial versions of Age of Empires and The Rise of Rome, then there's two more. Strife teaser has different quests, but you can play the teaser campaign in the Veteran Edition now.

I don't think this actually warrants a separate category. If a user does not own the full registered version and does not intend to buy one (or the full game is no longer available for purchase at all), what difference does it make if the levels are the same or not as in the full game? This can be noted down as some sort of trivia in the game's description though.

[MrFlibble]

The point of making a clear and color-coded distinction is to encourage visitors to pay for the full/registered/commercial version of the game after they've tried the free part. For simplicity's and understandability's sake, I'm declaring that the entire game is shareware if any part of it was released under a "try before you buy" model, whether the publisher calls it a trial, demo, shareware episode, or some other synonym for "free to try and redistribute". <...> for the purposes of this site, any game that had a "try before you buy" option will be considered "shareware".

I just had this idea: I believe you could simply use the term "try before you buy" where you're now using "shareware" (e.g. on genre pages the header says "Blue games are shareware, green games are freeware, and red games have officially abandoned their copyright into the public domain (abandonware)."). I think "Blue games are "try before you buy"" certainly doesn't sound much worse, and there's hardly any more literal and unambiguous way to convey exactly the meaning that you're aiming for. And to the best of my knowledge, unlike "shareware", "try before you buy" does not have additional connotations of certain marketing models or distribution terms that might be mutually exclusive or incompatible with the actual "status" of some other games in your collection.

[DOSGuy]

There's not going to be a way to please everyone on this. Blackthorne can insist that their demo isn't shareware but, if freely distributable demos aren't shareware, it needlessly complicates the issue. Having separate classifications for a shareware episode and a freely distributable demo is a distinction without a difference.

If it was important enough to be accurate on this issue, I could classify all games as "try before you buy", "gratis", and "libre". Not everyone would understand the latter two, and there are issues for visitors whose first language isn't English or French. George Carlin said that we should make language work for us (memorably suggesting that, for a year, we switch the words "kill" and the f-word). You can more or less say whatever you want as long as you define your terms. So, I'll update the explanation on the About page for how I define the terms. Basically, "shareware" = "try before you buy", "freeware" = "gratis", "abandonware" = "libre". Not everyone will agree with those definitions, but they don't have to. They can use the words however they want, as long as they define how they're using them, too.

[DOSGuy]

Incidentally, I came across a few games that only exist as free demos, such as the original MicroMan, which was a demo for the Windows Animation Package rather than for a game that could be purchased, and Tube which, I guess, was to promote Bullfrog and get them in the public consciousness to help sell future commercial games.

[Malvineous]

It sounds like Blackthorne were only stressing it wasn't shareware in case people mistook the demo as a small version of a larger shareware episode. Maybe they were concerned that when people came across the full game they would think they found the full shareware version of the first episode. Perhaps legally speaking it's also harder to claim one version of the game is free to distribute but another is not (demo vs full version), when the game's title is the same across all versions. Apogee had different episode names so it would've been much clearer for them. In MrFlibble's screenshot you could easily interpret it as saying "This is a demo of Blackthorne. [The full version of] Blackthorne is not shareware." They never said "this demo of Blackthorne is not shareware". But, with the same title for both versions, it's somewhat ambiguous.

The term 'freeware' was used back in the 90s if the author did not care whether anyone made changes to their program. You were free to do with it as you pleased. Shareware was usually used when the author did not want to permit unauthorised modifications. So although there were a number of freeware games, many free-to-play games weren't freeware, even though the author never asked for payment. Freeware really did mean free in terms of permission (libre) because if you as the author didn't want to charge for your software, but you also didn't want anyone distributing modified versions, you just released it as shareware and didn't include any registration information.

I imagine this is why shareware came about. Game studios could have easily said the first episode is freeware and the rest are commercial, but this would've given the green light to people distributing modified versions of the freeware episode, cutting into sales. Making shareware specifically prohibit modifications made it very different to freeware, whether there was a commercial component to it or not.

[MrFlibble]

There's not going to be a way to please everyone on this. Blackthorne can insist that their demo isn't shareware but, if freely distributable demos aren't shareware, it needlessly complicates the issue. Having separate classifications for a shareware episode and a freely distributable demo is a distinction without a difference.

I'm not suggesting to create two separate categories for demos and shareware. I'm only suggesting to not use the term "shareware" for stuff that is not that.

You seem to insist on using "shareware" in a sense that you yourself put into the term (as with your own meaning of "abandonware" - why is simply "Public Domain" not enough for you?), without regard for evidence that back in the 90s, the meaning of "shareware" was different. I would imagine that changing the meaning of a term like that does not exactly rhyme with the ideal of accurately preserving the history of a certain period in video game evolution.

If it was important enough to be accurate on this issue, I could classify all games as "try before you buy", "gratis", and "libre". Not everyone would understand the latter two, and there are issues for visitors whose first language isn't English or French.

Why do you think that "shareware" is more easy to understand for non-English speakers than "try before you buy"? Or that "gratis" is less understandable than "freeware"?

George Carlin said that we should make language work for us (memorably suggesting that, for a year, we switch the words "kill" and the f-word). You can more or less say whatever you want as long as you define your terms. So, I'll update the explanation on the About page for how I define the terms. Basically, "shareware" = "try before you buy", "freeware" = "gratis", "abandonware" = "libre".

You are certainly free to create your own meaning of "shareware" as a term, but in the context of the site, this creates a situation when you are using this term not in the same way as some of the original developers and publishers of games that the site features (e.g. Hexen, Blackthorne). I mean, if you say that Blackthorne demo is shareware, and Interplay says it isn't, this effectively creates two separate terms, shareware1 and shareware2, with incompatible meanings/definitions. Is that bad? I'd invoke Occam's Razor here, because I fail to understand any advantage in creating a new term shareware2, which may potentially confuse users (it certainly is a source of confusion to me, and for a long time already as I repeatedly pointed out), where you could equally well do without it.

I imagine that you like the term because of the "share" part in it. But this discussion started with the observation that many actual demo versions unfortunately have no license that would govern their "sharing" among users. In the absence of a license, how do you know that the developer/publisher/copyright holder would approve of unrestricted redistribution of a demo by any party and not that they intended it to be available only from select video game sites and magazine coverdisks? Especially if it is uploaded to a site they have no control over. The answer is that you don't know, but by using the term shareware you imply that there is a permission, in the same way as the explicit licenses found in Apogee or Epic shareware titles for example.

It sounds like Blackthorne were only stressing it wasn't shareware in case people mistook the demo as a small version of a larger shareware episode. Maybe they were concerned that when people came across the full game they would think they found the full shareware version of the first episode. Perhaps legally speaking it's also harder to claim one version of the game is free to distribute but another is not (demo vs full version), when the game's title is the same across all versions. Apogee had different episode names so it would've been much clearer for them. In MrFlibble's screenshot you could easily interpret it as saying "This is a demo of Blackthorne. [The full version of] Blackthorne is not shareware." They never said "this demo of Blackthorne is not shareware". But, with the same title for both versions, it's somewhat ambiguous.

I think you're making it a bit more complicated than necessary. I mentioned above several times that "shareware" is not a property of a free part of a paid game that makes said part free to share among users. Rather, it was a marketing model which applied to the whole game: in simplified terms, shareware means you could buy a game via mail order, commercial means you had to go to a store to get a copy.

The message in the Blackthorne demo is clear: the game is sold in boxes in stores, not ordered from a vendor.

Here's a telling passage from the Apogee FAQ:

Somewhere around September of 1992, FormGen Corp released Spear of Destiny.
This is a retail sequel to Wolfenstein 3D. This game consisted of one episode
with 20 levels. It had some new wall art, a couple of new objects,
and new boss creatures. This game is essentially the same as Wolf3D
but is completely new in the level design aspect. It was available
in stores like CompUSA. Apogee also resold this product but was not
responsible for its distribution. Apogee had to buy it from FormGen
like any other store would. There is a two level playable demo floating around
for Spear of Destiny. It's the same first two levels that appear in the full
version of the game. It is not shareware; commercial demos are for the most
part non-interactive, however, this one *is* interactive, and since it bears
a close resemblance to Wolfenstein 3D, which is shareware, the Spear of
Destiny demo is frequently mistaken for being shareware, which it is not.

[emphasis added]

If this alone is not enough historical evidence against lumping together the concepts of "commercial game demo" and "shareware", I don't know what is.

I think at this point I should say that I'm really sorry for making such a fuss about what is actually not a critical issue, but: a) I'm pedantic and b) I am a linguist by education, with some interest in historical studies, so words and their meanings are very important to me.

I imagine this is why shareware came about. Game studios could have easily said the first episode is freeware and the rest are commercial, but this would've given the green light to people distributing modified versions of the freeware episode, cutting into sales. Making shareware specifically prohibit modifications made it very different to freeware, whether there was a commercial component to it or not.

From what I know, when Jim Knopf invented the shareware concept in 1983, the term he originally used was "freeware", not "shareware".

But apparently in the late 80s, the established term was already "shareware" when Scott Miller modified the concept when applied to game distribution:

In the early 1980s, a new breed of game authors emerged. They distributed their product for free as "shareware," allowing copies of the entire game to be duplicated without charge and, in turn, asked for recompense if the player liked what he played. Unfortunately for those brave authors, few players ended up sending payment.

Miller saw the fundamental flaw in this system and created the "Apogee Model," named after his shareware company, which saw games split into multiple parts. Apogee distributed the first episode of each game for free, essentially as a demo for the whole product. If the player enjoyed it, he could purchase further episodes from the company.

The model proved wildly successful, and publishers like Epic MegaGames (now Epic Games) soon followed in his footsteps -- as detailed in our earlier interview with Epic founder Tim Sweeney. [source]

At any rate, shareware games as a rule of thumb come with a lengthy license that outlines all important aspects, including (usually) a restriction on making modifications of any kind, or extra levels etc. (Abuse shareware being a notable exception). So it does not matter if the publishers chose to call it "shareware" or "freeware" or whatever, as long as there was a license legally protecting their interests.