danfarr, I just got some sleep too, and am ready to go around a little, even though my posts so far are somewhat to the side of the main thrust here. As I did above, let me start with stipulation of your entire post 138 and 141. You have absolute right to your property. Also, for this post, let me hypothetically put aside the Sixus case. My wider question is this: what about this 'substantially similar' clause? Why do you feel it is necessary to include that language? Would it not be sufficient to stay with objective violation, as pointed out by blackhearted in post 98 above? The way you have the EULA structured, including it's 'consent when you download free Vickie including the FAQS' and with this omnivorous 'similar' clause, frankly you DO make people paranoid. It feels imperialistic, like you wish to go beyond protecting your property and preemptively intimidate others from entering the field, in fear that they will be subject of a suit by you if they somehow slip under the penumbra of this wide, wide EULA. Perhaps you can use this hypothetical in illustrating your response: what if someone starts with an original mesh and bones (working title Donna) but with the deliberate intention that the vast body of third-party textures could be fitted to her? "Included with Donna is a utility that lets you use any texture designed for Victoria." Not the morphs, not clothing with structure copied of any Unimesh structure...just the textures? What would be the position of DAZ with regard to that? ::::: Opera :::::