Well, I personally just got out of bed here, so yeah - this is the first opportunity I have had to reada the posts since I signed off on my last one. First up, wow - Dan Farr himself. Looks like this IS as important as I thought it was. And you know what - I really don't debate anything he said. Everyone has the right to protect their work. Alot of work went into V3, and it is that third-party work that has made her so successful. I know that they encouraged Sixus1 Media to keep Lilin2 around, but under certian "terms and conditions" they found objectionable. I started this thread talking about those "terms and conditions". Others may have used it as springboard for supporting other figures (be it Elle or the new Jessi/James combo), but that was & still isn't my aim here. Not once have I stated that DAZ were "wrong" in pursuing Sixus1 Media for their Lilin2 character. they have every legal right to do so under the EULA Les agreed to when installing V3. And THAT is what this thread was started on - the EULA "terms and conditions". Note that while Dan Farr said alot, he did not once refute what the impression of the EULA being debated here. In fact, he spent most of the post justifying that position. Now while I can afford "legal counsel", I cannot afford a court case halfway around the world to clarify the DAZ position in a FAQ (which you have to search through an ambiguously related question to find the information anyway) which is in direct contradiction to the terms in the EULA. This is not a "conspiracy", at least not on my part. The information is right there for everyone concerned in the EULA. Read it for yourself. If you can afford it, ask a legal professional what it means. If you don't trust me or my "agenda" - take half an hour out of your day to read everythinig in the EULA yourself and take it from there. From that you can determine that I am a crackpot, simply deluded/misinformed, or have fouond out something disturbing. In any case, I will have accomplished what I set out to do - and that is warn people about the "terms and conditions" they agree to in the DAZ EULA. To clarify a few things about my "agenda": I work as a software developer and make a substantial sum of money from it. I deal with EULA's all the time and have at times needed to refuse due to terms and conditions that were insufficient for my development needs. So when I chose to read the agreement (in light of the Lilin2 removal, not in defence of it) - I noted very similar conditions to those which I refuse to develop software under. I clarified it with a lawyer and she informed me my suspicions were correct - that I could not use the "joint parameter" data in clothing content I produced as it would be classified as "proprietary data" and could not be redistributed. In light of the FAQ announcement by cooler, I asked again about the matter and was informed that "new terms" could not be added in a "legally binding" fashion via an online FAQ. Given the EULA prohibts ALL redistribution without provision - I believed that the FAQ "clarification" to be a new term (and hence unenforcable). Someone else's lawyer has stated that the FAQ could be brought into a court of law and used as 'evidence of interpretation", however one would need to go to court first. And as I mentioned earlier - I cannot afford that and I doubt most merchants here could either. I also hold my reservations on such an action being completely successful, due to having seen contract lawyers at work. Tehir general advice is - if it isn't in the contract or a signed clarification thereof, it isn't worth the effort. Please note that not once have I said DAZ could not undertake the action against Sixus1 they did or that they couoldn't/shouldn't have put such restricting terms in their EULA. I simply decided to use this forum as a means of informing others about said EULA and what it means for merchants. Given that a high percentage of the people here can simply have a look at their Poser 5 EULA for comparison, it is not hard to compare the terms under which development for third-party figures can and has been done. Were it NOT for the Poser 5 EULA, I would have assumed that, like Microsoft licensing, it is just something that everyone has to live with in Poserdom. However that is not the case and, as such, I wanted others to know about it. I thank Dan Farr for his post, as at the very least it lets me know there is a new V3 product in the wings that might be interesting to purchase. Perhaps he will take into consideration people's issues in this thread when they draw up the EULA for the product. Perhaps not, that is a business decision they have to make.