Some "pro" is defaming this program and the models

[learning]

That's exactly what I was talking about previously. Do you see it's okay that religious following of licenses causes so many extra steps and waste of time and energy? As far as I'm concerned, this is not healthy and slows progress of our industry considerably. Sooner or later people will have to decide what's more important to them, industry (engineers) or licenses (lawyers). One would have to knock one down a notch to save the other.

[joepal]

I didn't invent the world, I'm just living in it.

And since I expect people to abide by the licenses I set when I share things, I make an effort to abide by licenses other set. At least when they're open source licenses and not 64-page incomprehensible you-may-not-use-this-software-to-make-nuclear-weapons EULAs.

It's perfectly valid to believe anarchy would be a better alternative than open source licenses, but I must admit I remain unconvinced.

This is not to say that I don't find the AGPL license a bit unfortunate in this particular case. But it is the way it is.

Also, this thread has become pretty derailed.

[learning]

Well, this thread is a flame thread if I've even saw one and it was like this from the very beginning. So no worries there

[duststorm]

the genitals proxies are not bundled with MH, and are only shared under AGPL in the user repos. The CC0 exception does therefore not apply to these.

Hmm, that is correct. I think a "MH license" could be added to the user contribution repo, which follows the same license model as the assets in the original distribution. And I think the genital proxies can be shared under that license, allowing CC0 use when exported from an original MH.

The "unmodified" means that that the code of MH was not altered, MH allows you to add new assets (data) but this is not seen as modifying the application, it was intended for this.

[kjuo99]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mRweGV8xXw

Shes selling her "app" for 60 dollars and she added this to the video description:

PortraitStudio doesn't differentiate from the competition just because its easy/simple, it's centered around building accurate light models for students/artists. Makehuman does not do what PortraitStudio does. While PortraitStudio sculpts a bust, Makehuman is an artificially and inarticulately lit mmorpg character build room.

what do you guys think? i find irritating that a person who thinks herself a "pro" goes defaming other ppl work just to sell her limited product...

apples to oranges, her programs intent is more limited, but she is right, mh has some flaws in the model design and alot of the users seem to be primarily interested in it's use for second life or similar games as opposed to actual 3d art (and I'm not talking about that creepy fetish "art" posted up on DA).

[learning]

Well not to say Mh is without flaws, but it serves its purpose of generating poseable human models better than any other program I'm aware of, free software or not. Of course it's not going to make art for you, it's a program, not an artist, lol. If you want to make legitimate art, you'll have to do something yourself, there's no way around it. But MH humans can provide a decent base to work with.

Again, it's not to say MH is perfect or anything, there are quite a few things that need to be changed or added, and devs willing they will be, but it does its job as it is.

[a.g.]

Hmm, that is correct. I think a "MH license" could be added to the user contribution repo, which follows the same license model as the assets in the original distribution. And I think the genital proxies can be shared under that license, allowing CC0 use when exported from an original MH.

So I wonder what happened to this idea?