makehumancommunity.org

> We have a hard dependency on PyQT, which is GPL

Did you investigate if it is possible to switch to PySide2? I don't know the details, but I believe it has different licensing options.

pepo wrote:> We have a hard dependency on PyQT, which is GPL

Did you investigate if it is possible to switch to PySide2? I don't know the details, but I believe it has different licensing options.

We did in fact look into both PySide and PySide2. However, that was a while ago, before PySide2 had matured enough to be production ready. Maybe we should take a look at it again. Although that is a longer term thing.

As far as I know PySide2 (or "Qt for Python" as it is now known) is licensed LGPL, which is a lot more friendly.

Concerning the feedback about third part assets and CC-BY: I hear you. I also happen to agree that it would be very convenient if all assets were free of attribution requirements.

However, this is a discussion which is separate from the discussion about the license for the application as such and its distributed form. That distributable only contains CC0 assets which originate from the MakeHuman dev team as such.

In the longer run we should also have a discussion about how to improve the asset repositories, and there include a discussion about licensing options. But this should preferably be done in a separate thread.

Well, as far as any potential changes to the repository's terms of use, I would urge that the discussion take place sooner--rather than later--because if there were changes (such as those I suggested earlier) it would be easier to deal with the current assets listed there when that number is as small as possible. For example, if you had to contact the contributors, and ask them to change their terms of use. And new stuff is added all the time, and the rate of additions may increase as other software that is tangential to Makehuman (like Blender) increase in popularity and use. I've seen more and more Youtube videos suggesting Makehuman as time goes on, and the release of 1.2 may spur additional interest. That's my two cents on that!

With respect to the nuts-and-bolts Makehuman license suggested in this thread, I don't think you have much to worry about. You have correctly noted that, since the source code relies on submissions made under GPL terms, that the source code must remain under those terms unless you were to reconstruct the code using programmers who agree to a more open license or got the original contributors to agree to change their current agreement. Also, you correctly note that having dependencies that are allowed only under GPL terms also limit the source code to those terms. So the proposed Makehuman license indicates that the source code remains under those binding terms, and properly indicates where to find a copy of the license. As long as the source code is made accessible, all is well. You have correctly disavowed any "warranty of fitness" for any specific purpose, so no worries there.

The only other issue that someone might be confused about concerns the terms of use of the output from Makehuman, including the "starting point" assets included with the software (e.g. the base models, textures, etc.). Assuming the Makehuman Team itself (past or present) made the original assets, or acquired them under a free-use agreement (like CC0), the Team is free to assign a CC0 license to them. 3D models, textures, morph-targets, rigging data, etc. is not source code, but rather makes up the input and output of the source code. Generally, software is made up of three components: 1) the source code that "does something"; 2) The input that the source code acts upon to determine "what to do"; and 3) the output--the "result" of the source code acting on the input. They are separate products, and may be held under separate terms of use. In terms of GPL software, that is true even when the input or output is, itself, source code, as in the case of GPL-licensed code compilers. In the code-compiler example, the user's input is their own proprietary code, and the GPL compiler acts on that code to output a different version of that code. Only the compiler software is held under GPL. Makehuman's input and output is even further removed from that!

For Makehuman, the fact that the base assets are bundled with the GPL software doesn't convert them to GPL. This is analogous to a GPL-licensed open-source word processing program that bundles a set of fonts with the software. The fonts are separate, and their terms of use are determined by the font creator, even though the GPL source code may arrange and place the fonts on a page. For Makehuman, the various base models are like fonts. Makehuman could have packaged the base models and morph targets separately, and required that they be imported to the software before use (not unlike assets on the repository, or extra fonts in a word processing program), but instead offers the convenience of having them included. Makehuman's source code arranges the vertices of those assets on a 3D "page" just like the word processor arranges the letters of a font. The Makehuman source code is not part of a 3D model or texture, and can't be derived from them, any more than a word processing source code could be derived from a font.

Likewise, the final user exports from Makehuman would be their own creation, using sliders and the like as input. This is like the output of a peom from a writer using a GPL-licensed word processor, and an included font.

So, I don't see any problem with the way the new Makehuman license is constructed. I hope this discussion helps! Now....about that repository....

joepal wrote:BEFORE: Trying to "reverse engineer" or recreate the targets is prohibited

Holy Stallman! Where did this come from? I couldn't find this snippet in the repositories.

Small question to the change itself: If I start using the basemesh, targets, ... in a game right now, but publish it after these files are switched to CC0, do I have to fake redoing all the work using the "new" meshes or am I allowed to assume these files are already CC0 and just publish it after the license change is officially done?

The nightly builds have already been switched to the new license, see https://github.com/makehumancommunity/m ... LICENSE.md for how it looks now.

So if you worry about it, use a recent nightly build. It is functionally equivalent of the latest beta but with another few bugs fixed.

If you want to wait until the final release before upgrading, I'm perfectly fine with you using the latest beta as if it contained the license change.

Okay...? I redid my current stuff using the new files, the new License is in the LICENSE.md and everything seemed fine.
BUT: Multiple files still have a AGPL license tag inside. Does the LICENSE.md take precedence over tags like "license": "GNU Affero General Public License 3" (https://github.com/makehumancommunity/m ... skel#L4013) and multiple other instances like the shaders (https://github.com/makehumancommunity/m ... er.txt#L16) or are these files still under AGPL?

Shaders are source code files, and are supposed to be AGPL. Shaders are only related to what is drawn on the screen inside MH, they are never exported.

Mhskel files should provably be fixed though.

In general: finding all places where the old license is mentioned is a work in progress. I think we have caught most, but we'll welcome all help we can get in hunting down the remaining ones.

I just read the new license linked to from within the MHX2 plugin code. All i can say is Thank You. I had gone ahead and invested a Lot of time preparing makehuman assets for use in a game i am working on, and was doing this all on faith. Now you have given me the green light and I am very relieved. Using another account, i recently became a Patreon.
honestly, I did not realize for quite some time that the project even had a Patreon account. obviously not the most observant person.
I will be spreading the word where i can about the license changes. once the word gets out, i believe there will be a substantial increase in user base.

A thousand and one thank you's!