I have to say, though, I am flattered to be mistaken for Questor. I like Questor; sa's cool. I was gonna just walk off, but if I'm gonna be mis-attributed anyway, I might as well clarify my statements. The beauty of a class action suit is that, generally speaking, one person does not bear the burden of the cost. Yes, Daz can make a less restrictive EULA and give people the option of adopting it. They can also make a more restrictive EULA and give people the option of adopting it. The important, common, and absolutely legal part of those statements is "give people the option". Dat's ma point. As I said, they need agreement from the buyers. And your response to my "tilting at windmills" comment, it seems to me that a problem here is that the general theoretical question of what is derivative is getting more entwined with what DAZ allows than it needs to be. Yes, they're tied to each other, but a lot of people are confused by the knots and think they aren't allowed to make clothing now. That is NOT the case. The discussions are about legal and ethical definitions of derivative figure, and about DAZ's policies, and about how those relate to each other, but the three are not interchangeable and that's confusing a lot of people and creating a lot of friction and hurt feelings that don't need to be there. --Hey, can someone open a window in here? The smoke's getting awfully thick. Now, to the statements I got credit for. Trying to figure out what the exact situation is: that's not going to happen with theoreticals. Why? Because the world is not divided into simply black and white. There's a lot of gray cases that would have to be judged based on their specific, exact circumstances. Trying to do so with hypotheticals is just a spider's web of confusion because, by defintion, there are not those specific, exact circumstances. Frankly, I don't blame the DAZ folks for refusing to step into that trap. It's a good way to get themselves in trouble with no benefit. They're best served -- in fact, I think we're all best served -- by the generalities, and pointing out the problems when they occur. Trying to narrow it down to pinpoint precision on guesses of what could happen is going to step on a lot of toes on both sides unnecessarily. Well, the Titanic designer's theory was that it would never be sunk under real world application if it were made in such a way, wouldn't it? Yes, a good theory will save your life, but it's only good if it holds up under real world circumstances. And to find that out for certain, you need real world circumstances to test it under. Interesting and COMPLETELY off-top note: safety factor (the amount of over-engineering for safety's sake) for an elevator: minimum 11. Safety factor for a commercial airplane: Around 1.3, give or take. (Don't worry, that doesn't mean planes are unsafe. They're inspected a LOT more than elevators in order to compensate for that.) As for adding something to DAZ's FAQ, how about "DAZ definitely has no intention to prevent people from creating complimentary clothing for the Millennium figures. Or saddles for the charger, for that matter. We admittedly recognize that Michael and Victoria would not be what they are today without the developmental synergy of third party developers. Also, we recognize the contributions of the many different Poser related forums such as Renderosity, 3D Commune, Runtime DNA, Poser World and others who are actively developing and selling Millennium figure clothing. We don't wish to thwart their development in any way." Would that do it for ya? (DAZ FAQ, "What is DAZ's position on the distribution of models and morphs derived from DAZ products?") I agree that these discussions (note the plural) are worthwhile and useful. But we really need to all be on the same page. My major point is more facts, less "what if"s. The what-ifs are all well and good to set the stage, but we're never gonna advance the plot very far without some facts. (How's that for a bad metaphor?)