Khai Wrote: actually gave up Actually you didn't give up posting your questions again. You have even added some requests. I will try to respond more specifically to your questions and requests. Please note that in my prior responses I was answering some questions specifically and some generally due to the sheer volume being asked. All though your questions may not have been addressed specifically I felt they had been addressed generally. Your requests on the other hand likely were not addressed. Khai Wrote: one of the conditions of L2 being still on release as to be Encoded. Yet, there are other figures with V2 and V3 features availible which are not encoded. My Quote from post 163: I am going try to answer the rest of the questions on a general basis from here on. First of all, we do not spend time pro-actively looking for models that may have problems. Most of the figures that may have concerns are brought to our attention by outside parties. We address them when we are aware of these issues. The creators of Dina V Contacted us very early on and we have an agreement with them that allow her to use Victoria's U.V's I am not personally aware of the other models mentioned in this thread. If the creators of those models are concerned that they may have problems with either DAZ copyright of EULA with them, they may consider either contacting us to discuss it or use the RTE encoder. While I believe the above response accurately addressed your question it may not address what I think might have been your underlying question why has DAZ contacted Sixus1 and not the others? The answer to that is Coolers post number 95. Lilin2 is clearly a derivative work of Victoria based on joint parameters, UV's and topology (referring to it's shape not the polygon cut and layout). Khai Wrote: and for cooler to apologise for his quite frankly appalling behaviour above I assume that you are referring to post 119 and quite frankly speaking, I disagree with you and don't find his behavior appalling and see no reason to ask him to apologize. Especially compared with the tone of many of the other messages in this thread. Khai Wrote: and for DAZ to make known in their EULA that the FAQ on their site is infact legally binding as the EULA on your screen so further mistakes will not happen. (plus having a further legal document that binds you and you don't know about it is bad. it should be part of the EULA or indicated by the EULA. saying well they should read the site... is not enough.) This is unnecessary. The fAQ's on DAZ's website do not and cannot in any way legally bind an end user (you) beyond what they (you) agreed to upon installation of the software. It can on the other hand add terms that in fact make our EULA less restrictive (intended to support developers who develop for our products) if we so desire and make it legally binding upon ourselves. That is what we have done. If there are developers who feel that our FAQ's and other written statements are not legally binding enough on DAZ, they can contact us and we will provide additional agreements for them. Some people reading this may be wondering why I have been so persistent to attempt to answer the questions that are being pitched at me. The answer is that I want to emphasize to them that DAZ is encouraging development of our products that support our products. We completely recognize their value to help make our products more effective and useful. We reserve the right to restrict our products from being used to create new products that circumvent the need for the original from which it was derived. I have done my best to address the questions in this thread. It has been exhausting but hopefully for those observing it has been beneficial in some way. I will ask that rather than continuing to post any further hypothetical questions, that people read the FAQ's on the DAZ page concerning these issues. If there is a need for answers or clarification to specific questions regarding projects that you are working on then please feel free to direct them to us. Sincerely, Dan Farr

Message edited on: 03/20/2005 10:30