Not a religion, but mostly pointing out that its a free giveaway on BSD (and in this case Zygote's) part, so that merchants can then lock down the results, as I've mentioned before.

The reason Linux (GPL) OTOH has grown far larger than BSD (not GPL) was because everyone has open redistributable access to the Linux kernel and all of its improvements.

I'm happy with either direction personally, but I suspect that a lot of potential merchants looking at this and drooling in anticipation of free labor for their income may be in for a nasty surprise.

Oh, in regards to: "and any derivatives", my dear EK - go ask Microsoft if you can redistribute their networking stack... it is after all a derivative of BSD's. I'm willing to bet that the answer is "no." I'm further willing to bet that any derivative of this project put up for sale will get you the same answer if you ask the merch for redistribution rights. ;)

Overall, if this is what they (and you) want to do, cool... As long as y'all know what you're buying into, I've no problems with it. I'm perfectly happy with coming back when the first of many nasty copyright snarls hit, and chiming in with an "I told you so" or two ;)

I wish you luck... you're gonna need it.

/P

Message edited on: 05/22/2005 09:44

"I'm happy with either direction personally, but I suspect that a lot of potential merchants looking at this and drooling in anticipation of free labor for their income may be in for a nasty surprise. I myself wouldn't want to do anything that wasn't intended as a giveaway where I couldn't profit from the value I added to the package. Freebes are nice, and I enjoy doing them once in awhile, but this is my only income. I also don't see how you can have a group effort on most of the things that go into a poser figure. You can have one person improving on the work of another, but it has to be straght line, sequential, any branching would never be able to return back to the "common" trunk. Once you recut a joint line, you have to change the joint parameters, and then the JCM, you can't put parts back in the original joint, it is all or nothing.

Penguinisto: Let me put this to you simply - YOU ARE WRONG, my dear. As I KEEP repeating, Open Source means that one CAN redistribute original code & any derivatives - not that one MUST. As such, Microsoft is well within their rights to restrict the redistribution of the networks stack "as is", due to the fact that they didn't license their derivative work under BSD. Want to know why I am so confident? Because I did my research. My quote was directly from the Open Source Initiative's website. Given that to be accepted as "Open Source" in the industry, a license must follow the conditions on their website - I think it is safe to say, BSD is "open source". Like it or not. For those that are confused by Pengy's twist and spin. Here are a couple of links: The Definition of "Open Source". Please note the quote I took regarding derived works was directly from Section 3 - "Derived Works" (funnily enough). The BSD license on OSI. That is, BSD is accepted as Open Source - regardless of what Penguinisto would like. The list of officially accepted Open Source licenses. Note that you will find MANY that do not need you to redistribute or license your derivatives under same said license. But you are ALWAYS allowed to. Now - Pengy may not AGREE with this information, doesn't make him in any way "right". Just as disagreeing with a law does not make breaking it "right". EK

Err, I never said it wasn't "open source" - I said the BSD license was stupid, and provided examples as to why. There is a reson I kept on providing the same example over and over again... But, you missed the point at least twice, and I don't expect you to make the correlations between why I keep mentioning Microsoft and how merchants and the community they inhabit work around here, if you haven't already. (shrug.) Deal. /P

Hmmmm, let me take a wild guess that a few people would disagree with that opinion, UC's lawyers foremost. It's a licensing scheme. Some like it, some don't. That doesn't make it stupid that I can see. Microsoft, Apple, Juniper Networks and many others have benefited from it. Apparently, the Berkley folks thought it was OK. The fact that you're not forced to tithe back sounds more "free and open" to me than the alternative. I'm sure there's something I'm missing hers but...If someone can make a super morphing Mimic vagina for Lucy and make money from it rather than be forced to give it away, will that not be a greater incentive for people to make super morphing Mimic vaginas? Will the limited market not discourage the production of a dozen incompatible vaginas, not that anyone can't make one and give it away if they choose to? I hear the dire predictions of greedy sinners despoiling the garden and bringing on the apocalypse, I just don't see how it plays out, though admittedly, no KoolAid has passed my lips. If it's true, then these figures are evil and we should burn them like Harry Potter books at a Baptist convention.

Allow me to quote you, Pengy... "That's not open-source, that stupidity on the BSD team's part..." Emphasis mine of course, so hoepfully you can see where you are misrepresenting even your own statements. Also, I am well aware of how merchants and the community tend to operate (it's not hard to see). Which is why I think a BSD-type license is the ONLY type of license that wuld be acceptable. As Jim Burton and others have already said - if they HAVE to give away any extensions/products making use of the licensed figure - they'd rather not do anything on them. Like it or not - Poserdom is pretty solidly commercialised now. I would put money on the fact that the ONLY open-source initiatives that would get widespread support in the current Poser marketplace are those that are a "stupid giveaway". Once upon a time, GPL-like licenses might have been acceptable, but I think that time has passed.

Oh, and as a small note - the "fact" that BSD never really took off is also false. OpenBSD is considered as one of the MOST secure operating systems available today (outside custom government networks). It is still going strong, and I bet you can't guess which license it uses? grin

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=2278071

"is a reson I kept on providing the same example over and over again..."

But it isn't a good example. The use of portions of the BSD stack by MS didn't hurt BSD one little bit. If anything, it has enhanced their reputation.

BSD is far from a failure... it is a well handled, stable, fast supported operating system that in many ways lacks the flaws that have recently been plaguing the Linux project (stability, bugs, communications problems and so on). Lest we forget as well the entire Apple/OSX use of BSD.

BSD is popular with both users, developers and businesses because it does not have the legal flaws of GNU license. Lots of companies have helped with the development of BSD (as with Linux) because they can contribute without fear.  Many, many companies won't go near GNU code due to the fuzziness of the license. I know that while i may have an urge to contribute to open source programs I absolutely won't do so to GPL'd code... it's too hard to tell when someone there will claim contamination in my commercial work.

The BSD license means freedom. It means you are releasing your code because you want people to use it. The GPL means you are releasing it hoping to "infect" other code and lock those people into your political or ethical views. It may be "open", but the GPL sure isn't "free" in any sense but dollar cost.