MakeHuman Mesh new license

[Eternl Knight]

If this is the one you are after BUT you want said license to be OSI approved, the Common Public Attribution License (CPAL) is fairly similar. this is being used by a few online software developers as a means to ensure that even though the source code & binaries may not be distributed - attribution (in the form of a logo or credit details) is still given.

The way I see this license working would be that images / meshes created from the MakeHuman base & morphs would be required to either include a logo (generally along with the other copyright information) and/or a reference to the MakeHuman project as being a source of the humanoid. The one thing that would need to be changed is (of course) references to "Socialtext" being to "MakeHuman", other than that - it would work fine.

I think the Creative Commons license is MUCH simpler, but if you require an OSI-approved license - this is pretty damn close (if alot more verbose).

--EK

[Maxoz]

So just to clarify cause I am not that smart on technically terms, if a guy was to make a movie at at some point used a mesh from makehuman and then he sold the movie that would be illigal or would it just be illigal if he ddin't credit makehuman?

[DAD]

final images are not an issue. the issue at point here is distribution of the underlying mesh used to create the model. Any images created are (or should be) yours to do with as you wish. You are not distributing any 'resource' associated with MakeHuman. The image was created by you.

[SuperCGpro]

The problem about mesh license is simple.

1) The initial mesh (basemesh), as database of verts coordinates and
faces topology, is considered as *source code*
2) The characters done with MH are considered as modified basemesh, so
*modified code*
3) So, if the basemesh is released under GPL, all characters done with
MH must be GPL too.

Point (3) is a problem for all professional users that want use mh
characters in commerical appl. (in example, games)
and, obviously, don't want release a public version of their work.

Starting from Andreas suggestion, we have examinated this (thx to Stefano Fabri):

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

tht's DFSG (debian free software guidelines) capable:

http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#hea ... d0c479ab9c

so prob. next release will use this license.

ciao,

Manuel

Here is a possible answer :
1) The mesh should be treated as a 3d primitive, and any results created by the user should be treated as derivative results from such primitive.
2) The resultant output of the software's "mechanical design"and "directed use" should be deemed "user protectable content." That is, the user of the software should be able to define their own license as needed for their creations.

All Open source 3d software that create polygon based objects use a database of coordinates, algorithms, etc to make their objects. It is therefore important to make a distinction between the code used to create the software and the results of such code. The informaton for the figure is stored, I believe, in base.* files. The results, although in some cases identical, are stored in *.obj, rib,*. bs, *.dae files, as well as rendered output files . The textures should also be considered "output" or reusable by the user, because at some point you may want to create a color adjustment feature that allows users to change the color or hue of the texture map , and store it with the other exported files (stored in the *.obj or *. Dae folder, etc )
Here are just a few examples of programs that are open source, but their results are free for their creators to use commercially.
:
a) Blender : Blender is open source, but the items created with it are free for the creator to use commercially. Remeber, Make Human was originally created for use in Blender. Susan, the monkey primative in blender, can be used commercially. Therefore Makehuman human primative should also continue to be free for commercial use.
b) Wings 3d : (3D)
c) K 3d (3D)
d) Gsculpt (3d)
e) Audacity (Audio editor )
f) Gimp (Photo editor) (the filters and effects used in Gimp are part of it's source code, but the images created by the user are not. )
3) Create your own MH License that maintains commercial use :
The Make Human models have been under the MIT License, which you stated in the past, allows for commercial use and additonal, user created, license restrictions (copyright, etc ) . If they are put under an even simpler license, this is ok. as long as commercial use is still possible. The license you suggested (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en ) would have to be modified because of a few clauses like this one : "...Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license...." If left as is, this would open the door for piracy of commercial works.
There is a clause that states "Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." This, as I interpret it, means that the MH team can apply any portion of the license needed, if a signed, written agreement between the team and the user is established. This can be found in line 8. section d of the legal code of the license( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ) . It reads as follows : " No term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged with such waiver or consent."
The best result may be to make a new, special license that states the users have a non exclusive, royalty free right to use the output of makehuman for commercial purposes / commercial works and that their individual creations can be copyrighted, if necessary . Also it should state that the user has the right to share the items (creative output ), place restrictions on who can use them (commercial use), and / or create their own additional licenses as needed, covering their created content / output from the program.

(*note : much thanks again for your generosity )

[Frankly3D]

What if you want to give away the mesh as O.S.S.?
Can you still give it under GPL, by saying mesh is GPL?

Frank

[Eternl Knight]

Final images are not an issue. the issue at point here is distribution of the underlying mesh used to create the model. Any images created are (or should be) yours to do with as you wish. You are not distributing any 'resource' associated with MakeHuman. The image was created by you.

Actually, this is not strictly correct. There is an exception to copyright law that allows someone to use something copyrighted (such as the MH Mesh) in a new work so long as the work is "transformative" or uses only a small part of the original work. These are "fuzzy" concepts however and are up to a judge/jury to decide (should the copyright holder sue).

I highly doubt that the MH dev team are going to sue anyone and it is also highly unlikely that a jury would agree with them & award damages if they did.

The problem from my end is that our lawyer won't take those risks because the license (as it stands) is quite explicit in what rights it does and doesn't grant and their conditions. The MH mesh, as currently licensed, can possibly require that the artwork derived from it (i.e. images) be licensed under the GPL (i.e. free for others to use under the same GPL restrictions). After all, the mesh itself is artwork (it is nothing but digital sculpture), not an application in which you create art. Lawyers are paid to be paranoid, but you don't need to be to see the issue with this...

--EK

[SuperCGpro]

Please see this regarding the output (including 3D files) of Blender.

http://www.blender.org/education-help/f ... sts/#c2128

The Blender FAQ (above) explains that the output of Blender is the sole property of the artist, & not Open source. If this were not a provision within Blender's licensing, projects like the Spiderman 2 film would instantly become Open source (the film is a "derivative work" of it's own animatics and storyboard, which were created in Blender). A situation like this ( Big Hollywood Motion picture treated as open source because of licensing clause ) would allow anyone ( including bootleggers & Pirates) to redistribute the film, probably cause big companies (in a reactionary way ) to "reevaluate" or ban the use of open source software by their employees, & possibly give the open source movement an unfairly acquired negative image due to a likely media association with piracy of intellectual property (Napster case).
Therefore, I think Blender made the best (obvious) decision in allowing all output (3d files, images, etc ) of the program to belong to the various users of the program.
Allowing the output of any program such as this to become the user's property ( like a painting created in "Gimp" or a book written in "open office," for example) is only common sense, and does not in any way interfere with the Open source status of the originating software or cause harm to the open source initiative. In fact, it would most likely benefit the open source initiative, due to possible (voluntary) positive publicity . Simply put , the open source "share alike" concept is fine for a software developer who wants their ideas to remain free, but it is less than ideal for end users who are most likely using the software in connection with their respective fields of economic endeavor (i.e. jobs), etc.

[Eternl Knight]

Blender is able to do what you describe because they only license the "application code" under the GPL. The meshes used by the application (including the susan monkey "primitive") are public domain licensed (as in they claim no copyright over the meshes whatsoever). This is not the case with MakeHuman where the mesh & it's morphs are currently GPL licensed; hence the ongoing discussion as to what license should be used for the meshes and morphs.

From what I can tell, Manuel & company want credit for the MH-derived mesh regardless of how it is used. While not ideal, I can understand this. However, GPL is most definitely NOT the way to go about this... at least, not if people want it to be used beyond the quick fiddle. Source code & "art" are two different areas with (from my experience) very different expectations on how others should be able to "derive" other works from...

--EK

[SuperCGpro]

Blender is able to do what you describe because they only license the "application code" under the GPL. The meshes used by the application (including the susan monkey "primitive") are public domain licensed (as in they claim no copyright over the meshes whatsoever). This is not the case with MakeHuman where the mesh & it's morphs are currently GPL licensed; hence the ongoing discussion as to what license should be used for the meshes and morphs.

From what I can tell, Manuel & company want credit for the MH-derived mesh regardless of how it is used. While not ideal, I can understand this. However, GPL is most definitely NOT the way to go about this... at least, not if people want it to be used beyond the quick fiddle. Source code & "art" are two different areas with (from my experience) very different expectations on how others should be able to "derive" other works from...

--EK

Actually, the current Make human mesh is under the MIT license and is clear for commercial use ( http://www.dedalo-3d.com/legal.php ). Blender is a good example of the two license method, one protecting programmers freedoms to expand the program, and another protecting users creative rights. Also, regarding credit, one would assume that the team rightfully wants to maintain the copyright to the original base mesh, but, most likely, they also want people to be able to use the program in a way that fulfils the original goals of the project. This is why, if they can't find a suitable one, it may be a good idea to go ahead and write a new, simple, additional license (the "Dedalo 3d", "Make Human", or "User creation" license ) to cover the output of the program (including bs files, any 3d files, textures etc).
Ok, lets look at this from a different perspective. If the mesh being bundled with the application code is the central problem, lets remove the mesh from the code. Here's how this could work:

1) Make the source code for the application (engine, etc) available as a separate installation. ( licensed under whichever license is needed).

2) Store the other files in a separate executable or zip file ( targets, bs files, base.* files, textures etc. ) ( licensed under a separate, simple license, like the one from MIT. The creative commons one suggested, in it's detailed description, leaves to many legal loopholes if not modified by the team. The "share alike" clause has to be optional in order to work commercially ).

3) Users load the application in first. Then, they load in the separate mesh, targets, etc ( through second executable ). The user, after agreeing to the mesh license, picks the location of the data folder, then, hits "install" (they could be given options like partial, custom, or full install, etc).

4) This solves the "source code" problem, because the mesh is now treated like a plug-in ( same method used by other software like Gimp, Photoshop, Zbrush, for example ) and can be made available anywhere necessary .

4a) This also solves the "target update" situation. You no longer have to update the whole application in order to make new targets available to users, fix the base mesh, etc. The team can make new target updates as they become available (like clothing, hair, fantasy morphs, etc. ). The user then has the choice to load in the number of targets that he or she wants or needs to load in for their particular use.

5) This option also makes it easier to use the maketarget software without encountering any posssible GPL issues ( currently users can modify the base targets without issue, because the base mesh is under MIT ).

6) As an additional option, the MH program could also be modified to use a simple runtime folder option to load targets, mesh files & other data. Makehuman could then be told (from a preferences tab) to access the runtime and its subfolders for the information. Blender could have a new plug in created that allows any mesh to be exported into Makehuman's native file formats. This would allow users to make modifications to the MH mesh (change edge loops, add / remove polygons, etc ) or use any mesh of their choosing to load into Makehuman. This way, if there were any issues with the base mesh, users could substitute their own mesh ( and targets, etc, for that mesh ), maintaining functional use of the software.

7) Problem solved (end)

[Abc]

Question: If the meshes are published under GPL, can they still be used for commercial renders, without the render being GPL?