MIT LICENSE? - Sorry, still not good enough...

[Mugsey]

The MIT License assigned to the mesh says the following:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Mesh"), to deal in the Mesh without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Mesh, and to permit persons to whom the Mesh is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Mesh.

Notice where I underlined this. This is still ridiculous...YOU ARE STILL GIVING PEOPLE ONLY CONDITIONAL OWNERSHIP OF THEIR OWN WORK!!!

By requiring inclusion of the "PERMISSIONS NOTICE" to an end user's outputted model(s) - you are still giving others the right to steal and vandalize an end user's outputted model(s) according strictly to the provisions of that said "PERMISSIONS NOTICE" as being a clause of an end user license obligation. READ THE PERMISSIONS THEMSELVES!!!

Also - by including someone else's copyright notice to "the mesh" - then the end user thusly states that his outputted model is by definition a DERIVATIVE work of a copyrighted entity - and not an end user owned entity. The end user sacrifices intellectual property rights - at least insomuch as exclusivity is concerned.

In other words - no matter what "sub-license" I might slap onto a model that I have created, I still have to give my permission to whoever recieves my model to butcher it however they see fit? (hence the mandatory requirement of inclusion of the PERMISSIONS NOTICE that gives the recipient of my model the "right" to steal, modify, and sell it at their leisure!) - this is just more subtley worded GPL / CC type JUNK. By including the permissions notice with my outputted model - my outputted model then is subject verbatum to the proclamations of that same PERMISSIONS NOTICE. By doing this - a sublicense of any kind would be pointless.

The MIT license is illogical and self nullifieing, on one hand it says "restrictionless" - and then it slaps a conditional proviso on output end user ownership that retroactively renders an enduser's model as defacto public property.

I'm sorry, but if you can't give the end user total EXCLUSIVE ownership of their work free of conditions, mandates, or superfluous accessory requirements - then using MH to me is just plain silly...I'm just going to go and buy a copy of POSER and forget this mess. This is just too much aggravation. I'm uninstalling...

[pistacja]

It's the #3 topic on the same em.. topic. Manuel already said that:

OK. Maybe a solution can be totally free the output mesh, while the software database, like targets, poses, expressions etc... can be released under GPL.
It sound good?

I'd say that's good enough for me.

[Mugsey]

It's the #3 topic on the same em.. topic. Manuel already said that:
Manuel wrote:
OK. Maybe a solution can be totally free the output mesh, while the software database, like targets, poses, expressions etc... can be released under GPL.
It sound good?

I'd say that's good enough for me.

The point is - it's NOT totally free, because you are being asked to include a permissions notice with YOUR MODEL that states quite plainly that ANYONE can take YOUR MODEL and do whatever they like with it! YOUR MODEL is a "derivation" of THE MESH (it IS in fact - the mesh).

I believe I explained that quite clearly. What Manuel said about making the output totally free I completely agree with, that's not the point - the point is that if you place output under the MIT license - as it stands - then the "PERMISSIONS" outlined by the MIT doctrine pertain to YOUR model (not the "source code" mesh, otherwise you would not be required to include the copyright and permissions notice with your outputted model). The MIT license DOES NOT differentiate YOUR MODEL from the program's ""SOURCE CODE" MESH". In this way, it actually provides an "under the radar" loophole for potential copyright infringement of any original characters that you might make using a mesh that falls under the MIT license criteria.

Here is what ANYONE can do to YOUR MODEL IF you follow the "conditions" of the MIT license:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Mesh"), to deal in the Mesh without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Mesh, and to permit persons to whom the Mesh is furnished to do so.

See what I mean? according to the conditions of the MIT license - YOUR MODEL must include a notification of these permissions,

subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in ALL copies or substantial portions of the Mesh.

because under the MIT license your outputted model is still a DERIVATION OF THE MESH! Manuel said himself that output would fall under MIT, hence - YOUR MODEL!
The MIT license will pertain to YOUR OUTPUTTED MODEL, the rest of the program (the "source code") will fall under GPL.

Ultimately - the difference between GPL and MIT under these circumstances is only in the syntax of the language, not the inate substance of it. More or less - it's just the same thing - either way.

[pistacja]

Yes, you are right, I totally agree with you... still this has been discussed and the license will change (as of the coming version if I understand it right). The models made with the current version still will fall under the MIT because when installing the software everyone must have agreed on this license and I don't think anyone can change an agreement after both sides actually agreed with it.

Anyway the license says "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Mesh." and because it is written like that I don't feel obliged to include this copyright notice in my renders. A render - a flat image - is neither a copy nor a "substantial portion" of the Mesh. So if I get this right the problem with the MIT license is only there when you want to sell (or sublicense) the mesh and not images (or animations) made with it. I'm not quite into the 3d modelling market but I think that meshes (models) are usually sold to game developers and the current output mesh is way to complex to be used in any game so I think the whole problem is rather theoretical.

In my opinion the whole problem is irrelevant or will become irrelevant with the next release

[Mugsey]

Hopefully yes - the licence issue WILL be resolved - but as for the arguement being theoretical, it is only theoretical in your case because your primary concern is exclusively 2d images. I - however - AM a modeller. I am interested in creating my own human and humanoid 3D figures and perhaps selling them - perhaps not (but I would like the option).

Actually - from a legal standpoint - in any event, the models made by MH will not be truly commercially practical UNTIL there is a relaxation and ceasation of any push, intentional or otherwise, to shackle the artist's models to an impractical licensing doctrine that forever ties the model to the legalities of it's origins. I believe Manuel said that the plan is for the next incarnation of MH to fall under MIT (I certainly hope not).

[SuperCGpro]

i have a bypass for the MIT loophole that can indeed protect your models.

[Mugsey]

SuperCGPro -
Bypass? ....Explain please?
A "Bypass" solution is insufficient, the license for MH must be ABOUT THE PROGRAM ITSELF, it must be designed to PROTECT THE PROGRAM. The "mesh" must be unrestricted (no attribution, copyright, or "permissions" clauses) - OR - the BASE mesh, defined by it's specific UNALTERED metrics, must be protected - but once altered and outputted, becomes the property of the enduser.

If indeed the hermaphroditic generic "base mesh" is to be defined as a part of the program itself and thus fall under a restricted license scheme - then one way to protect the base mesh legally would be to make figure export not possible UNTIL "n" changes have been made to the mesh itself that sufficiently differentiates it from it's original generic form - and decreases the likelihood of other users by chance producing an identical output model.

Another solution would be to add some form of digital signature to the mesh that differentiates it from any output mesh - even a mesh identical to the generic core mesh EXCEPT for the special "digital signature". Once a mesh is exported - MH would then remove the signature from the output? That really wouldn't be a very good solution in actuality because it still leaves open a lot of copyright pitfalls - but it's an angle to look into anyway.

No matter what - the output model MUST be unrestricted and conditionless.

[Eternl Knight]

Actually, your understanding of the MIT license is faulty. The MIT license only applies to the "root mesh", which means that users are only free to use said root mesh straight from the MH program. They are not, however, entitled to the derivations and or amalgamations to the mesh you have made - which are under your copyright. Take a look at some of the Adobe & Apple (iPhone) "legal notices". You will find the MIT license in there for portions of the software. It doesn't give YOU the right to copy the derived/amalgamated product. The license text presentation is a "condition" of Adobe/Apple's use, not an expression of the "permissions" they add.

In "geek speak", the MIT license is not a "copyleft" license where the material once licensed (and distributed) must remain forever free. The MIT is good for what I call "one shot, credited freedom". I can give you something for free so long as anytime you distribute it (compiled, edited, transformed, whatever) you give me credit for the work I did on the original. You don't need to make it free from then on, and in fact, most licensee's of MIT software don't.

I can understand your frustration about having to add someone else's name to the copyright list (with or without the "lack of warranty" text). However, going nuts on a misunderstanding is not going to help anyone, least of all MH.

--EK

[SuperCGpro]

I think people are letting the license situation get too complex when it doesn't need to. I have a complex explanation for a simple solution too (I may post it later, as an example). With the complexity, we see the depth...with the simplicity, we see the form.
Define the function and goal of the program, and (deductively) the needs will begin to define themselves (with a little common sense added).
If the Goal of the program is to enable users to create a an unrestricted output mesh, then the license must enable that.
This situation needs a control cage

[Mugsey]

Eternal Knight:
I am not "going nuts" about anything.
Secondly - does Poser, Maya, Hexagon, Bryce, Wings3d, Carrera, Amapi, TrueSpace, K3d, 3D Studio Max, Wavefront, or any other 3D modelling app require you to add additional copyright notices in outputted product? Answer: NO!
It's actually a pretty silly concept.

You don't have a problem with it, but I do - and so do some other users.
I'm calm - cool - and rational, and I understand the MIT license. It reads like it reads and it says what it says, and that's the name of that tune...

Where did YOU read that the MIT only applies to the "root mesh"(?), because I, and I'm sure everyone else in the universe who read it, saw no defined or outlined distinction of a "root mesh" indicated in the license anywhere - just "the mesh" - and all outputted product contains "the mesh"! I don't speak "Geek" , but I do speak "Legalese", and that means reading the fine print FIRST, and looking for the loopholes that can snag you like a bear trap.

I am NOT "going nuts" on the issue - I am bringing up valid points that desperately need correction before MH could ever hope to be commercially or professionally viable.

Also, I am not making the issue "too complex" - because where lawsuits, fines, court costs, legal fees, and potentially even imprisonment might be concerned - you can NEVER get "TOO COMPLEX".

This point of this thread is not to bicker, but instead - it's a very healthy debate. We are contributing to the developement of MH simply by discussing this issue.
MH is still in it's infancy - and both users and developement team members profit from discussions like this. It's important to iron these things out and to cover all of the bases early on in MH's evolution, while it's still in the preliminary developement phases.
The language of the license is as crucial to a software project as the qaulity of it's content - anyone can tell you that.

In a way - this situation reminds me of the film "12 Angry Men" starring Henry Fonda.
12 jury members are sequestored in a jury room deciding the fate of a juvenile boy who is convicted of killing his father. As the film begins - almost all of the men except one are impatient, and they want to do a quick "guilty" vote to put the whole issue behind them and to go on with their lives. It took one consciencious guy with a sense of conviction to point at the importance of not only the consequences of a guilty verdict - but the critical value of even the most minute details of the case.

While I'm not going to be so narcissistic as to place myself in the role of "Henry Fonda", and
since we are talking about nothing as severe as a murder trial, STILL - the moral of the story (to me anyway) as it would pertain to our discussion - might be that every detail is important, and we can't avoid discussing these issues merely because we find them boring or tedious, and we want to move on to other things.