Licensing and source models

Team and Website feedback
Constructive criticism is welcome.

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby Julius » 30 Jun 2010, 18:35

Well that would be my defense also ;) And it would probably work, since the Warzone2100 stuff is really rather generic.

But in any case, I don't see anyone of the original Warzone copyright holders suing you so you are on the save side ;)

Never the less it would be great if you would be so kind to release the high-poly models too :geek:
Julius
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 06:43

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby Rman Virgil » 01 Jul 2010, 02:03

Rman Virgil wrote:.
I do believe in non-profit giving but please do not even try to dictate how you want that gesture of good faith & generosity to take shape. Just make it a real nice request & I'll more than likely oblige.


Julius wrote:Which brings me to my last point... the GPL is all about hardcore copyrights (and protecting those rights), that is why your reference to the "Digital Barbarism" Book is completely nonsensical as far as I can tell from what information on that book is available on the internet.


Well the reference was in the specific context of what this AR project is doing.

Secondary or tertiary sources are no substitute for a primary source and if you actually read "Digital Barbarism" in the context of my reference it is anything but nonsensical.

Believe me I know what the GPL is for since I spent almost 5 years working on getting this source liberated with the former Pumpkin Studios Project Lead Programmer and also asked for the exception clause from Eidos and was granted it as well. ;)

- Regards, RV 8-)
.
Rman Virgil
 
Posts: 3
Joined: 28 Jun 2010, 08:21

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby Olrox » 31 Aug 2010, 15:42

I dare to speak on behalf of the AR Team, since I've already did so before without any objections: 8-)

The AR mod is currently released under CC-BY-SA-3.0 + GPLv2, under authorship of the AR Team as a whole.

I honestly didn't read the GPLv2 license but it is necessary because Warzone is released under GPL so anything that is going to be used along with it needs to be released under GPLv2.

About the CC-BY-SA-3.0, the bottom line is, you can use the mod and modify it as you like, but you must share it with everyone and attribute the AR Team as the authors.

All of our high-poly models are unpublished, they are not "released" (screenshots of them are), so their owners are each individual that created them, and not the AR Team as a whole. This way, Mangust's high-poly models aren't officially my property as well, while the AR Mod is attributable to all the members of our team.

Sincerely, we don't do that because we want to keep it for ourselves, it's actually the opposite - everything we do is for Warzone and the community. We don't keep releasing the high-poly models because that would take unnecessary time and host disk space, taking into account the purposes of our project.

But, of course, if we are especifically requested to release our models, I doubt that anyone would say "no, this is my personal high-poly model", mainly because it wouldn't make sense (they were made to make the models which we are distributing under the forementioned license, and our softwares' licenses allow us to distribute our work like we are doing, so there's no real motive to keep them for ourselves).

Of course, future mod-makers could benefit from our models, sure. But who are them? If they ever show up, we'll be glad to release our WIP content - again, it's each artist's decision, but I doubt anyone wouldn't release their work under a polite, unharmful request.

Resuming it into far fewer lines :P - We could release all our content, or most of it, under a specific, polite request of a goodwilling person, under an unkown license, not less permissive than a combined CC-BY-SA-3.0 + GPLv2 license. I believe our team can agree on a standard license if it's the case. But we need real motives, since right now it seems like it'd be wasting our times and the host's disk space.

We're sharing our artistry with anyone who wants it for a long time, and nobody who wouldn't want to would be allowed into our team. We work for a better Warzone, not for the credits, but such a big effort - truly a task-force - is worthy of credits, IMHO.

I hope you understand that, and that it is enough to clarify your toughts towards our project :)

Fabian Czajkowski
(Olrox)
ImageImage
User avatar
Olrox
Artist
Artist
 
Posts: 25
Joined: 21 May 2010, 10:00

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby MaNGusT » 01 Sep 2010, 13:00

Julius, Why do you need our high-poly models, for what purposes?
ImageImage

P.S. Sorry for my English.
User avatar
MaNGusT
Artist
Artist
 
Posts: 218
Joined: 21 May 2010, 00:02

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby Julius » 06 Sep 2010, 18:23

Ahh thanks for clearing that up... I am perfectly fine with the GPL + CC-BY-SA option.

Concerning the high-poly source models... well they would be nice to have in the repositories too. Maybe sometime in the future some of the original creators can not be contacted any longer, or you need to do a small quick fix on the normal-map, or someone wants to do some mod with new units that could benefit from some of the high-poly meshes etc. There are myriads of reasons why someone could need the high-poly source files in the future.
Sure you could release them then, but who knows if that is possible by then (hard drive crashes etc), and it really just complicates the issue unnecessarily.

Plus, I don't think you need to worry about a few extra megabytes on the sourceforge servers ;)
Julius
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 06:43

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby MaNGusT » 07 Sep 2010, 00:46

Julius wrote:Maybe sometime in the future some of the original creators can not be contacted any longer, or you need to do a small quick fix on the normal-map, or someone wants to do some mod with new units that could benefit from some of the high-poly meshes etc. There are myriads of reasons why someone could need the high-poly source files in the future.
you still haven't answered to my question.
do a small quick fix on the normal-map
It can be done through the nvidia photoshop plug-in.
someone wants to do some mod with new units that could benefit from some of the high-poly meshes etc.
I don't really think that we want it. It's not our goal.
We improve warzone's graphic but we don't create a stuff for someone's collections. you want another high poly models for the our low poly? -> create your own high poly models and be happy! ;)
ImageImage

P.S. Sorry for my English.
User avatar
MaNGusT
Artist
Artist
 
Posts: 218
Joined: 21 May 2010, 00:02

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby Julius » 07 Sep 2010, 11:28

I don't need your high-poly models specifically, but I think one of the strengths of open-source development (and that extends to art assets) is to build upon others works and reuse parts where is it appropriate. Therefore I think all assets should be made available for others to work with (under the copyleft license of course).
Julius
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 25 Jun 2010, 06:43

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby Jorzi » 07 Sep 2010, 13:23

Hi-poly models are not so reusable as you seem to think. Hipoly=>Lowpoly workflow is only good for creating new models from scratch. Otherwise you always edit the textures in programs like photoshop or gimp. The biggest use for hi-poly models on the internet is simply putting them in your demo reel and take credit for them, or selling them on various sites.
Jorzi
Artist
Artist
 
Posts: 155
Joined: 18 May 2010, 01:59

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby dak180 » 08 Jan 2012, 14:31

My concern about the licensing is that the 'source code' clause may apply to the high pollies and even though the dev loophole would cover you (ArtRev) it would make it so no one else could subsequently distribute it under the GPL (including the Warzone Project).

Beyond that I imagine the high pollies would be useful to anyone who set out to redo the vid sequences (I think at least one person has come forward expressing an interest in doing this).

In any case you should clearly define what you consider to be the 'source code' for all your work and make sure that none of it gets lost (putting it in a repo for example).

That is, of course, if you still intend to release under the GPLv2.
dak180
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 06 Jan 2012, 16:54

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby MaNGusT » 11 Jan 2012, 00:57

dak180 wrote:Beyond that I imagine the high pollies would be useful to anyone who set out to redo the vid sequences (I think at least one person has come forward expressing an interest in doing this).
Lol... you really don't know what you are talking about. 1-2 millions polys for a model... I think that none of you has so much powerful PC to create a vid sequence with at least 8-10 models in a scene, wallpaper - may be, video - no. We just have our own workflow to keep model details as much as we can on texture..

also, I still don't see pumpkin's 3dsmax files in the source archive...

P.S. Sometimes I think we just should release our works "as is".
ImageImage

P.S. Sorry for my English.
User avatar
MaNGusT
Artist
Artist
 
Posts: 218
Joined: 21 May 2010, 00:02

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby Jorzi » 16 Jan 2012, 09:23

Edit: apparenly there are a few things in this mod that are under a gpl license. However, the hipoly models do not count as source, but rather as a texturing tool, since the models themselves are fully editable and not everyone even uses a hipoly=>lowpoly workflow.
Also, I personally like to release my stuff under CC0, which means you can use and modify my stuff, but I have no obligations whatsoever.
This also means you can use my shader (the only code this mod contains) in a closed source game and sell it without even crediting me.

Also, if anyone is serious about remaking the cutscenes, it's just a matter of pm:ing me, and I'll transfer the files privately.
Jorzi
Artist
Artist
 
Posts: 155
Joined: 18 May 2010, 01:59

Re: Licensing and source models

Postby dak180 » 22 Jan 2012, 22:13

MaNGusT wrote:
dak180 wrote:Beyond that I imagine the high pollies would be useful to anyone who set out to redo the vid sequences (I think at least one person has come forward expressing an interest in doing this).
Lol... you really don't know what you are talking about. 1-2 millions polys for a model... I think that none of you has so much powerful PC to create a vid sequence with at least 8-10 models in a scene, wallpaper - may be, video - no.

If I recall correctly the individual in question was looking for something to do for a university project and had planned on using their servers to do the rendering; not that it makes much difference at this point for that individual, likely they have moved on to something else by now (I am fairly sure that this happened at least 6 months ago).

MaNGusT wrote:also, I still don't see pumpkin's 3dsmax files in the source archive...

True, it is one of the reasons why we would like to replace as much of the art resources (including the vids) with things that have better (and better documented) provenances.

Jorzi wrote:Also, I personally like to release my stuff under CC0, which means you can use and modify my stuff, but I have no obligations whatsoever.
This also means you can use my shader (the only code this mod contains) in a closed source game and sell it without even crediting me.

Also, if anyone is serious about remaking the cutscenes, it's just a matter of pm:ing me, and I'll transfer the files privately.

I certainly appreciate you doing this, it goes above and beyond what one would normally expect from most artists (credit usually tends to be important, as well it should).

Admittedly a big part of having resources kept in publicly readable SCM for most open source projects is to encourage "drive by" contributions/uses by lowering the barriers of entry as much as possible.
I worry that we might miss out on some people offering to do such things like redoing the vids if they do not see the resources to do such a project readily at hand; to a certain extent every open project is in competition with every other for "dev" time and all other things being equal "devs" tend to put in their time in the place that makes it the least difficult to do so.
dak180
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 06 Jan 2012, 16:54

PreviousNext

Return to Ideas and suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron