Yet another license question

[sonerd]

I guess you're bored of seeing license questions. I'm sorry if I'm repeating a question, but it's not in the FAQ, and moreover I tried to search the forums with the words "license" and "game", and the search engine refused to search claiming they're two common words.

I followed these forums years ago, but I see the license has changed since then, and I really don't understand the exact meaning of the new license, so I ask my doubt:

Let's suppose I want to develop a closed-source game which uses low-poly reduced versions of humanoid meshes created with MakeHuman. Let's suppose the game needs to do some morphing (for character expressions and/or poses, interpolating in the game meshes created with MakeHuman).

If I've read it correctly, if I export two meshes and wish to interpolate them in my game (for character expressions/poses), then my game is "extracting" the original MakeHuman morph data (indirectly, and with many morphs combined, but it's doing so), so the game would need to be GPL 3.0.

If I understand it right, the only use of meshes in a closed-source game would be to static meshes (maybe with the MHX skeleton, but without morph possibility).

Also, I'm not sure if I can embed the meshes in my C/C++ source code, or if they have to be bundled as data files.

As I said, sorry if you're tired of these questions, but I couldn't find an answer...

[joepal]

Actually, you would not be able to include any form of mesh data in a closed source game, static or not. Such mesh data would be a derivate of the base mesh and thus be covered by the MH license, thus blocking your closed source.

The only output of MH you could use in a closed source game would be 2D bitmaps / renders, which are not covered by the mesh license.

None of this would apply in a GPL:ed game.

[sonerd]

Ok, so I quit following MH developments. I've been very interested and I've followed the blog these last years. Open Source development comes in two flavours: "advocacy" (in the sense of convincing everybody to go open-source -ie: GNU software) and "practical" (in the sense of hoping your software will be used as much as possible by everybody -ie: BSD/MIT software).

I'm in the second wagon, so I'm sorry, I quit.

[sonerd]

Just in case there's any possibility for you to reconsider the license, it should be noted that DAZ have created an special license for Indie game developers. If I've read it correctly, it costs $500, but if you purchase it, you can use any DAZ model in your games or simulations.

You can read the details here:
http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/artzone/ ... edev/start

I believe MakeHuman, by using GPL for the mesh is less competitive than other GNU software.

I mean this:

1- The GNU compilers don't impose any legal requirement in the object code they generate. So, the GNU compilers can compete against commercial compilers, because GCC can be used for creating commercial closed-source software (and most of the GNU compiler success comes from this, otherwise the native compiler of Mac OSX wouldn't be GNU).

2- The same can be said for other GNU software, such as Gimp.

3- On the other hand, MakeHuman, by adopting the GPL for meshes, is in a poor position compared with GCC or Gimp, because it cannot compete with commercial 3D modeling tools (at least, it cannot compete with DAZ, because DAZ can be used for closed-source games, while MakeHuman cannot)

[pistacja]

I must say I'm a bit puzzled now.

The license says:

The MakeHuman™ Team retains Copyright over the topology and the base mesh, but grants you permission to copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the generated materials over which they hold Copyright (except the case of using the exports to create commercial software mimicking MakeHuman™’s features), including the topology and positional information constituting the base mesh provided that this does not prevent others from doing the same.

I've always understood that I'm allowed to do all the things (copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell) with an exported mesh (generated materials), provided I don't try to make a MakeHuman clone and I let others do the same with that mesh.... buy You say I can't? Not with not-GPL stuff?

I remember that there was a topic some time ago (...like 2 years or so), asking if a mesh exported from MH can be sold at Turbosquid, and I remember Manuel saying it's ok... but the model on Turbosquid is under a 'Standard Royalty Free' license that says nothing about GPL.


I'm making a game. A free one, but not open-sourced (just to make it a wee bit difficult to cheat), all the code is packed into a executable, but most models are loaded from a multifile (like a zip archive, anyone can extract, add or replace the files there). The executable has it's now, non-gpl-compatible license (no source code provided), and files in the multifile have their own (some CC, some WTFPL and suchlike). In this scenario I can't use a model that started as a mesh exported from MH?

I suppose that if it's GPL or bust, then my second question is irrelevant, but still... What about the texture?

[joepal]

For reference, the license text is here: http://www.makehuman.org/node/320

The answer above is my interpretation of the license, which never was very clear in the first place. I am not the author of the license, nor in any way a copyright holder, so my opinion is just that: an opinion.

... constituting the base mesh provided that this does not prevent others from doing the same

I interpret this as the standard viral GPL:ish clause: if you copy/modify/distribute the mesh must make it possible for others to do the same. This is in contradiction with closed source.

You do not acquire exclusive Copyright over the topology or positional information constituting the base mesh, so others can, in perpetuity also create works derived from the topology and positional information constituting the base mesh and the morph target data used to deform the base MakeHuman mesh

I interpreted this, again, as changes you did which involved the base mesh must be shared. It is not clear which "morph target data used" we're talking about here though, if it is the specific morph, or the target files in general.

Unfortunately, the whole focus of the license text is to say that it's up for interpretation exactly what would be "mimicking makehuman's features". From earlier posts and from chats my understanding has grown to be that any software that interactively manipulates a humanoid 3d mesh in any way whatsoever counts as mimicking.

However, it isn't exactly a new discussion, and so far no-one has been able to present a good and definitive guide over what the license actually says.

[Manuel]

If I've read it correctly, if I export two meshes and wish to interpolate them in my game (for character expressions/poses), then my game is "extracting" the original MakeHuman morph data (indirectly, and with many morphs combined, but it's doing so), so the game would need to be GPL 3.0.

Well, the idea is to avoid smart companies to make a closed source version of MH using our targets.
For this reason, the original morph data are under GPL, and the output models are under MML (makehuman mesh license).

When you extract morphs from output models, even if they are not the original data files, they are still under MHteam copyright.
But you can use these files in closed source works:

http://www.makehuman.org/node/385

This mean that if someone try to use them in a closed source MH clone, we can legally act against him.
On the contrary, if your game just use few morphs and it's far from a MH clone, it's in safe place.

Best,

Manuel

PS: We are studying a new way to handle licenses, anyway.

[sonerd]

[...]On the contrary, if your game just use few morphs and it's far from a MH clone, it's in safe place. [...]

Thanks a lot for your clarifications. When I said using morphs from a game, I was thinking for example in a magic potion that improves the musculature of the character: So you've a thin character that takes a magic potion and morphs himself into Hulk or whatever... in this case the game needs to interpolate between meshes. The same could be needed for facial expressions (although I'm not sure about the current state of facial expression morphs, but if/when they're ready, a game might need to do morphing across facial expressions).

Maybe all this could be said clearer with a special license for developing games, gfx demos, simulators, and related stuff, with the requirement that the software cannot be used for the same purposes as MakeHuman... I don't know maybe you already have the correct wording after all, although it's not straightforward to understand (for example, joepal and I interpret the license in opposite ways)

Thank you!

[Manuel]

Months ago Joel suggested to use double license:

- default: GPL for all
- if requested: special license for commercial usage

I like his idea, and probably this will be the final way, when MH turn in beta.

Best,

Manuel

[ppClarity]

Oh wow, GPL3. That's a shame. For some reason I thought you guys used the GPL2. Those are very different licenses.

The following is my interpretation of the GPL3. I am not a lawyer, so I probably got something wrong. However, I'm not willing to spend the US$10,000 it'll take to get an opinion I can depend on. Feel free to argue, but I'm sticking with mine until I get a binding opinion from an attorney licensed to practice in my jurisdiction

Due the the "anti-Tivo clause" this makes anything that depends on the MH base mesh completely unusable in anything other than a GPL3'd code base (not even GPL2). The other thing that makes me avoid using GPL3 code in my projects is the anti-patent agenda: if the upstream project violates a patent my interpretation of the GPL3 is that it makes me responsible for any damages. Yes, software and business method patents are stupid, but I have to live with them until my elected officials get a clue.