... flow

"but bring something workable to market faster and more efficiently" Or he could be taking the initiative to bring it to the community rather than the market...

He could indeed. 'course, something's going to have to compensate the committee for all that time :p /P

Anyone with a backup of Ironbear's commentary - I would love to read it? Please?

I still can`t get the newsletter, I tried 4 times.

" Anyone with a backup of Ironbear's commentary - I would love to read it? Please?" Check the RFI - the full backup of IB's fisking is in there (you'll have to scroll back a few pages.) /P

To be more exact... http://www.xfx-3d.com/postnuke/html/index.php?name=PNphpBB2_12a&file=viewtopic&t=40&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=8550

Message edited on: 05/20/2005 13:29

Attached Link: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/310650p-265769c.html

Border vigilantes, Daz, CL, Zygote... WTF??? I'm going back to the perfectly ordinary tale of the woman who used her breast milk to extinguish a burning amputee.

" Border vigilantes, Daz, CL, Zygote... WTF???" Nah - that's just a quiet day-shift in there. Just don't go in after dark if you value your sanity >:) /P

I just think its some members taking it upon themselves to assume there's open warfare between these companies even though their official representatives have never hinted at anything as such...

We'll be making an announcement shortly.

"I just think its some members taking it upon themselves to assume there's open warfare between these companies even though their official representatives have never hinted at anything as such..." Warfare? No. Business? Certainly... in all its glory - lipstick, warts and all. ...besides, you honestly don't think they'd say bad things about each other, would you? After all, the toes you may step on one day, could well be connected to the arse you may be forced to kiss the next. This leaves all the not-so-connected but fairly observant folk (often far more observant than I) to step in and tell it like it is, so to speak. Like the Mafioso usually say - "It's nothing personal, y'understand..." ;) /P

"I just think its some members taking it upon themselves to assume there's open warfare between these companies even though their official representatives have never hinted at anything as such..." - PBM

Nope. The warfare is always perfectly covert. They wouldn't want to upset the Poserites. The Gawds never ever fight, doanchewknow. ;) Ooh! An Official Announcement! snnniffff! I just love the smell of burning CorpoSpeak in the Evenings. Smells like... Manure, generally.

Ironbear, Pengy... whether it's business or "covert warfare" this kind of animosity is just uncalled for. What do you have invested in this situation to warrant such disdain because CL and Zygote have considered open sourcing?

I hav to agree with PBM here. Just what is it about open-sourcing 3D figures is it you disagree with? In Ironbear's tirade (sorry - that's the BEST I could call it), he makes claims that Zygote & CL/eFrontier are only doing this because DAZ is making money the same way. To which I have two things to say - first: DAZ does not open-source their figures (just read the EULA), and second: Sixus1 Media was releasing free figures (under much less stringent terms) long before the V3/M3 figures had their price slashed (where were the "OMG DAZ are trying to destroy &/or fleece the industry" calls then?) Simply put - what is WRONG with open-sourcing figures? If there is nothing wrong with the action itself - then all the conojecture about WHY they are doing it is meaningless. More to the point - a "distraction" from the good.

EK, not only has the M3 and V3 bases been released for free, but also DAZ Studio. This would seem to be some acknowledgement on DAZ's part that there is more involved that making money as there is an opportunity to participate in the community as well. I believe the reason some people are getting upset they feel their ability to profit from DAZ products will be diminished if the content moves away from marketing and more towards open source figures and freebies.

Err, gents? I'm the absolute last guy that anyone in this here forum can credibly accuse of being against Open Source. I've been a rather fervent little Linux and OSS partisan since long before most of the fine folks in here had even rendered their very first Vicky... Trust me on this. "Simply put - what is WRONG with open-sourcing figures?" Because code as a whole are a series of machine-readable processes, whereas "figures" are nothing more than datapoints to be read - there is no actual source there to be made open. Even the likes of Richard Stallman Hisself can't clearly define how one can make end-product data open yet protected at the same time. Hit up the GNU Free Documentation License sometime, but take some Tylenol before you try to delve into it. The concept I have no problems with, so long as it doesn't violate anything previously agreed on between Zygote and DAZ when the former spun off five+ years ago. The execution of it is going to be a beast, to be charitable about it: because of the unique and subtle differences between data (a .cr2 file) and a given process (source code), topped with the "I wanna be a merchant too!" attitude that this lovely community seems afflicted with, I just don't see any future in it. I've seen a whole lot of snarls that come from poor planning, and both Zygote and prospective merchants are going to be stuck with a quandry - how to get an OSS like solution that protects the original copyright upon which the mechanism depends, how to protect prospective merchants from having their morphs/characters/modifications from being P2P'd all over Hell legally at first opportunity, and at the same time remain viable. To top it off, unless anything has changed since 2002, Renderosity won't allow any open-sourced stuff to be sold in their stores, because it conflicts with their own EULA (trust me - I tried once.) Kinda hoses it all up right there, no? So why the focus on sales? Because the merchantile angle seems to be the one and only way left to get a decent variety of stuff for it, and continuous support for the base figure beyond the next "ooh, shiny!" release of some new mesh... and even that's no guarantee, though certainly better than nothing, I suppose. Now, as for why? Well, there's lots of room for speculation, but a solid enough guess can be had just by looking at it from the business angle, and it don't look as rosy and sunny as it seems made out to be. Not saying it's sinister, either - it's just business, which means the ultimate goal of maximizing the amount of cash the companies get out of you. Once you realize that, then you have to look at how they intend to go about it (after all, Zygote isn't a non-profit charity, so please, enough with the "caring about OSS" bit.. they're in it for the marketshare and profit, just like DAZ, Rendo, RDNA, PPros, and everyone else is.) /P

Attached Link: http://www.e-frontier.com/open3dproject/index.php?

Well folks. We thought it would be important to provide a constructive medium to further these discussions. The whole premise for this initiative was to unleash a new paradigm of creativity in the community. We'd like to invite you to the Open3DProject forum. We have a vision for this but we're looking towards the community to help shape and mold this project. We're giving you pretty much a blank slate. Bring your enthusiasm, imagination and collaborative spirit over to the Open3DProject forum and let's do something that's never been done before, something extraordinary. The e-Frontier and Zygote Team

Thanks Zygote and e-Frontier :)

Pengy - for the record, I was not accusing you of being against "Open Source Software" in anyway. I know from past posts of yours that you are all into that stuff. I'm also into it from a software developers side of things (I frequently use Python & wxWindows in applications I develop and have contributed minor programs to the world at larges under BSD type licenses). I have to disagree with your misgivings regarding the ease of execution in this regard. I see no difference between the open-sourcing of code vs the open-sourcing of mesh/rig data. Both of them are covered under the same copyright laws and as such, require similar licenses to "protect" them from fair use provisions and the like. Copyright law does the rest. From the way you word things - you make out like because the base figure is "open source", any derivatives must also be (see your comment RE: P2P sharing). This is patently not the case. For example - a modified BSD license would allow people to sell their derivatives so long as a copyright notice remains within the source files. Sixus1 Media's Project Human license (while not perfect) is very similar to this scenario. Open Source does not necessarily mean "GPL" (where changes to the base copyrighted material must also be made freely available when distributing a "compiled" version). As for Rendo not allowing "open source" items for sale - that too I think would depend on the type of license used. A GPL-like license I can understand them not accepting, an item derived from a BSD-like licensed mesh would be legally no different to what they do already. However, even in the event that Rendo decides against it - there ARE other places to sell these things. Last but not least - there is a tone of condecension in your post targetted at the strawman's argument that we're saying that Zygote & CL/eFrontier are in it for the "good of Open Source". Noboday said that. I simply said it doesn't matter the reasons behind it. As you said - it's business and in that business people are looking out how to make money. DAZ, Zygote, CL/eFrontier - they are corporations with the same aim - "To Make Money". What matter is HOW they go about this aim. Open Sourcing figures is not a bad method of doing this (you yourself mention that). However, the fact that they are trying to make money keeps being mentioned like it is something we need to watch out for. Merchants are in it for money too - does that mean we should warn people about their releases all the time?

Rigging data is not protected under copyright if it is determined by a settings within the program. Rigging can, however, be protected by a contractual agreement (such as a Eula) -- for example, the DAZ figures. "...an item derived from a BSD-like licensed mesh would be legally no different to what they do already." Yes, it would, as it would necessitate the inclusion of an alternative licensing arrangement to the license presently required -- to exclusion of others -- by Renderosity.

Has it ever been determined as fact or now, whether cr2 data can be undeniably protected? I am curious about this. Regardless of the Eula, webFAQ, etc, has it been absolutely established that a cr2 can be copyright protected? If so I would like to see where it was established and by who. My understanding was Psoer formats were non-copyright protected, thus why Studio is able to use them without permission.

excuse the typos. It's late. :)

CR2s are settings data. An effectve, general web search on settings data will provide several cases where settings data cannot be subject to copyright. and no prob on the typos. I'm drunk AND crazy. Everything equalizes out there somehow...

The CR2 format is not protected by copyrights. A document about said CR2 format is covered by copyright; as can be individual CR2 files. Copyrighting a file-format is not possible per se, which is why companies such as Microsoft are "patenting" them instead (a questionable practice with questionable legal basis - but who wants to fight M$ in a court of law?) On the other hand the rigging data in said CR2 files is a tricky one. As ynsaen mentions - it is a setting specific to an application and has no realy meaning outside that context. Case law suggests that as such the extent to which copyright law applies is limited. Even in the case of it being covered, without an explicit contract, use of rigging data from the CR2 is allowed under "fair use" provisions. Case law has established that one may use portions of a copyrighted item for purposes of "compatibility" in the context of computer systems & file formats. However, this is a provision that most people are explicitly barring through the use of "restricted distribution" terms in their EULA's. So... to summarise. Without an explicit license barring said use - copyright law allows us to use the rigging data in the CR2 for the purposes of compatibility (i.e. rigging clothing for a figure). However, in practice - there is not many figures out there with licenses allowing it.

But files and sites are pulled all the time due to cr2 infringement. Daz obviously claims that their cr2 is copyright protected. What are they basing that on? I'm not against the idea, but need to know how they are successfully establishing copyright. I have been looking intot his for a long time and can't find anything that allows copyright of a cr2. It would be nice but I can't find anything. Cooler, Are youa round?? Anton to Cooler. Come in Cooler. You handle alot of this stuff. What is the basis for establishing cr2 copyright?

Actually - most the time, DAZ is getting people on infringement of the EULA. Their EULA states that one cannot distribute any of the data in their installs (whole or in part). As such, having agreed to their EULA - you are bound by the stricter terms contained therein. This was covered not that long ago in a thread here at Rendo (started by myself actually).

Do you have any web links to Eula cases? Is a Eula truely a legally valid method of binding the user?

Hmmm - no web-links but EULA's have been successfully used against people in a court of law before. There is some ambiguity as to whether some of the more insane elements of modern EULA's are enforceable (have you actually READ some of Microsoft's latest offerings?!), but restriction of rights granted by the Copyright Act has been established as fair and binding. As such, having agreed to DAZ's EULA - you are bound by that term. Which is why (until DAZ clarifies their position on merchant use of said CR2 rigging data) I will not agree to said EULA.

One simple case, Anton: Sun vs. Microsoft. MS violated the Eula on the sun engine, so they sued and won. A eula is a contract, and as such, is as enforceable as the laws of the state in under which it is governed allow. Eula's are legally binding in the United States provided they meet the criteria for willing acceptance. They are constantly challenged -- even today, but yes, they are legally binding. Because they are contracts, as well, they are subject to a much wider and more specific body of law than even copyright. Contracts are the secret evil...

Does the Eula have to be displayed prior to download? Or just including it is enough? So Daz's Eula makes thier Poser files copyright protected? this doesn't sound right. I rememebr Daz being against using a Eula to make the poser files copyrightable. Was along time ago but I thought that was it. Is there something else perhaps isntaed that makes it possible to protect the cr2 you distribute? WHat is in the Eual specifically that makes that possible?

No - the EULA only needs to be viewable before agreement. Given that DAZ offers a non-conditional refund if one does not agree to the EULA - they're covered on this front. DAZ's EULA does not make their files copyright protected. Agreeing to the EULA makes the files "contract protected". The contract in question gives you less rights than copyright would. Under copyright law, one could use the rigging data for compatibility - their license prohibits that. What makes the CR2 protected is that for the right of installing and using DAZ's copyrighted material (the CR2, mesh, textures, etc) - you agree to abide by the terms of a contract DAZ presents you (the EULA). This is no different to licenses stating that one can use a freely distributed Poser figure/mesh only for "non-commmercial uses". By agreeing to those terms - you are entering a contract. What I think is getting confused here is the difference between "copyright law" and "contract law". Copyright law (at least in the US) applies to any copyrightable creation (be that a mesh, literature, music, etc) and gives every copyright-owner the same rights. Contract law is a completely different body of law and one's rights in any particular agreement are defined by the contract in question (provided certian conditions are met - which DAZ does meet by the way). This is not to say that I support the way DAZ has written their license (I don't, they know this, and are apparently in the process of "fixing" this problem for the merchant community at large). But what they are doing and the claims they are making for figures such as Alex & Lilin2 are perfectly legal (I personally checked this out for Lilin2, though Alexa fell under basic copyright law).

Thats for the info. I have no opinion on their Eula, just was curious how copyright protection is achieved through it's use.

Glad to be of service ;)

Okay - last post I intend to make on the subject in here for awhile, so let's get it all tied up. EK: Open Source does not mean "it's open until someone locks it down for sale" which is in essence what you're proposing. It means that changes are allowed in perpetuity, and that changes to changes are/should be allowed. And yes, there is a difference between code and data - Source code is not readily apparent or even viewable without specialized tools, patience, and a little luck. OTOH, any fool can open a .cr2 with nearly any text editor. It is therefore easier to protect source code, and to make it available under certain conditions, like open/closed source licensing. Not so with data - it's all available for modification right then and there, so the mechanisms one would need to ptotect or keep it open are vastly different. BTW, it ain't condecension, just hard questions that need answered... it'll be easier to do that now, than trying to do it after a thousand different and conflicting assumptions are made and then sold by the recipients of these things. "However, the fact that they are trying to make money keeps being mentioned like it is something we need to watch out for. " Nope - just stating it, since folks tend to get all gushy about stuff being touted as one thing ('hey guy's we're giving it to you for free! Open Source!') when in reality it ain't been determined yet ('...but with conditions which we still need to determine'.) ;) /P

"To top it off, unless anything has changed since 2002, Renderosity won't allow any open-sourced stuff to be sold in their stores, because it conflicts with their own EULA (trust me - I tried once.) Kinda hoses it all up right there, no?" I already checked with ClintH and showed him a copy of our license and he didn't have any problem with it. So, I will see if ClintH can pop in and give an official statement on that aspect of this. --Rebekah--

"Nope - just stating it, since folks tend to get all gushy about stuff being touted as one thing ('hey guy's we're giving it to you for free! Open Source!') when in reality it ain't been determined yet ('...but with conditions which we still need to determine'.) ;)" If you've read Sixus1's license the conditions seem pretty clear to me.

Three or four years back, Rich Suchy (a wonderful character modeler) made available an open source woman on Preset Central, which now appears to be defunct. He released her with a GNU/GPL open source license.

Preset Central is now gone, and I'm not sure how to contact Rich Suchy. However, at the time, I asked him if I could Poserize the model and release her to the Poser community.

His reply was "That is exactly why I did it that way, and I would like to see her put to good use." He also said that I could give my Poser version away, or sell it, whichever I prefer. With TWO conditions.

(1) That I include the original GNU/GPL license with the product that I distributed; and
(2) That I granted anyone from that point on the freedom to do with my creation anything they wanted.

In other words, someone could take my Poserized version of the model and do anything they wanted with it, with the condition that they, too, gave anyone permission to do with the model what they wanted.

That is my understanding of what the Open Source licensing is all about. I would think that if the same open source geometry is used to make clothing (such as a catsuit), and if that catsuit is made 100% with the open source geometry, then the conditions should also extend to the catsuit (someone should probably clarify that).

BUT, if the clothing for the models are all original, then the conditions change, depending on the license that goes with the all-original clothing.

Message edited on: 05/21/2005 10:03

PS --- I did make an attempt at starting the model, and I actually got as far as texturing it. I thought of resurrecting it a year ago, but with this potentially better model there is no point in doing so. 8-)

Deecey, there's always room for more :) Whatever you are working on, there's bound to be someone interested :)

Hmmm ... maybe I will one of these days. I actually have some ideas for her. 8-D

The thing about using the developer's forum here is that you get a bunch of feedback :)

Attached Link: http://www.poserforums.com/viewforum.php?f=131

With our license (which isn't based on GPL/GNU), what ever you create from the Open Source content is yours to do with as you please. You do have the option of contributing back to the Open Source project and then what you contribute would have the same license as the original open source content. Example: You download the new Project Human female figure. You create a catsuit derived from the mesh and use the JP's from the CR2. You can give it away as a freebie, sell it, or make a contribution to the open source project...which will make it then open source content for all to share. You could take the original mesh, alter it in a 3D program...output a new mesh and sell it. It is up to you. I am working on a FAQs for our stuff to answer questions like these. I don't know what kind of lisence e-F (CL) or Zygote is going to use for thier open-source figures, so I am only speaking for Sixus1. These figures and Open Source content are going to be available to everyone. It is up the individual if they take advantage of a new resource or not based on their needs. I am not trying to push this idea or materials onto anyone, I am only trying to clarify for those that are interested. **For the record, we have been working up to this for some time. It started with the old Project Human and us giving away figure for free. It was a kind of reverse thing...instead of giving away support products for our figures, we gave away figures for the support products. With what we are going to do next, we aren't doing some marketing scheme to make money. This is truely a way to give back to the community and hopefully help foster something new and creative in some people. A way for people to stop worrying so much about licenses and just have fun. If people want to read more into it than that, then there isn't anything that I could say that would sway them otherwise. --Rebekah--

Attached Link: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

Actually Penguinisto - Open Source CAN mean exactly that. For example - take a BSD-derived license for instance. I can take code under that license, change parts of it to my liking and then sell said result. Having made a derivative of that code - so long as I keep the original copyright notice in the code (usually top of the file) and allow people to utilise said "original code", I CAN lock down the derivative. Microsoft has done exactly this with BSD code. As BSD is classified by the OSI as an "open source" license - I believe you are wrong in this instance. What I CANNOT do is lock down the original version for sale - I need to make a derivative product. It is the copyright on the derivative version which gives me the rights to lock it down for sale. The Project Human license for instance gives one this right. As for differences in code & mesh - I still disagree with you. sure code can be "compiled", but that is not what is at issue here. We are talking about the "open source" license applying to the source here, be that code or mesh. So long as the license is not GPL-like (and hence must be applied to to all derivatives as well as the original) then this is quite possible. One does not need to include "derivatives" and "modifications" in a license for it to be Open Source. The OSI (Open Source Initiative) only requires that "the license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." It does not say that "the license MUST enforce the distribution of modifications & derived works under the same terms and conditons". GPL muddies the waters when talking about open source because it is (as Deecey & Pengy point out) a "perpetual open sourcing" license & happens to be in the media alot more often than other open source licenses. Some like to call it viral, but that is a term I will refrain from in the following discussion. GPL requires that if one changes licensed source code and distributes the result of these modifications in compiled or source form - one also must make available ALL the source for the application in question (as it is now deemed as bing licensed under GPL). This is what prevents say Microsoft taking parts of the Linux OS and incorporating into their next version of Windows. However, GPL is not the only "open source" license out there. Just go the link above to see the wide variety of licenses clasified as "open source". Most of which are nowhere near as restrictive regarding derivative works as the GPL.

"Microsoft has done exactly this with BSD code." Yep - their networking stack, to be exact... and its locked down good and tight. That's not open-source, that stupidity on the BSD team's part, and a huge reason why BSD itself never really took off. It was too easy for IBM, MS, and everyone else to simply steal what they needed, bury the credit in a .dll or .so file somewhere, and nothing went back into BSD. ...still think it's a good idea? ;) /P

I still think that it is a good idea. --Rebekah--

I've never really understood the quasi-religious nature of parts of the OpenSource movement. It's kind of like the Mac religion. If you don't buy into the exact doctrine, it's heresy and therefore evil. Maybe it's generational. If someone wants to give something away without strings and they don't care if you make money with it, that used to be a good thing. Of course, we didn't have the notion that everything should be free in the old days either.

I still think it's a good idea as well. Arguments about hardware, unix, and other tangents are not going to distract anyone from the real issues here.

Well, I'm not a license zealot. Simply a "zealot" for truth - and the truth is that by the industry accepted definition of "open source" - BSD is open source, like it or not. Pengy might not think it is "open source" by his definition. However, the standard definition is that one is ALLOWED to redistribute the source and any derivatives not that one MUST do so. This is something I think is GOOD for the Poser community. Think of how much easier things would be if one didn't need to RTE encode figures such as the Aeon line of Dodgers, or the A3Man of Posermatic's. BSD-type licensing allows these product to be distributed without the RTE hassle and yet retain rights in not redistributing the figures without permission. EK

I think open source is a great idea with all its pro's and con's ... Linux is the best example for an open source project ... its a commercial system now but without all the ppl who have worked on it over the years it havn't become a great operation system. Lets start with ("Tim and Tammy?") Zygotes great Figures and see what happens the next years ... Look, your able now to make all what you have missed in other figures ... go for it! :) Greets Chris