hmmmm....I'm with Sam here, as in a little confused on this issue. To me, there's a couple of things here to think about and discuss, if you will. 1) What's legal for free distribution 2) What's legal for commercial distribution Someone tell me if I'm wrong with the following assumptions: Regarding free distribution: The ultimate problem here is allowing someone who only owns the Vicky 1 CR2 to have access to Vicky 2 morphs from the Vicky 2 CR2. So, if I create a character based on the V2 CR2 and distribute it (with DAZ morph data) for free, I'm basically in violation of the agreement with DAZ. If I release my custom CR2 with no morph data i.e. Muscular=1.0 (without the deltas) I should be within legal limits, simply because I'm not releasing the actual deltas. If the person's Vicky CR2 doesn't contain valueParm "Muscular"...it simply won't work. Now if I decide to include the DAZ morph deltas for some reason and, using Objaction Mover, encode the file using the 'blMilWoman' OBJ file...I'm very much in violation because both V1 and V2 use the same mesh and I've just given a V2 morph to someone who doesn't own it. For commercial distribution, the issue seems a little more complicated right? In this situation, if I create a custom character based wholly, or in part, on standard DAZ morphs...I'm in violation because I'd be gaining financially from something I technically didn't create. Now here's where I'm a little confused (I'm not a commercial vendor, but I'm interested none-the-less). What if I create a character package, including textures, poses, character morphs...but it just so happens I created the morphs from DAZ parameters (i.e. "head fairy" or "head hag")? Would I be in violation in this situation? Perhaps the commercial value is not in the morphs, but in the total character package that just so happens to contain settings that utilize the DAZ morphs to facilitate my character concept. I tend to agree with DAZ in their right to protect their product. There are alot of things out there in the marketplace that make me scratch my head and say "How can this person be making money on this stuff?" But, that being said, there are also alot of great products out there, well worth the money spent, that may fall into the nebulous grey area previously mentioned. And honestly, I know they're protecting their investment, but do you think they'd honestly bring legal action against someone here? If so, that's really a shame...perfectly within their right...but a shame. Biting the hand that feeds you comes to mind. Am I basically correct in my assumptions here? If not, how?