I’d agree. It looks like Make Human is saying that both the mesh and the tools for manipulating it are released under GPL so therefore a modified version of the same mesh would also be under GPL.
Not sure what that would mean for an image produced with a M.H. mesh. Probably the creativity the artist contributed in modifying the mesh to suit their own conception would give them intillectual rights over the image, even if the mesh - which is part of the tool that produced it - would still be under GPL.
To paraphrase: “I could paint a great picture, but couldn’t claim the brushes as my own creation.”
From the above, it would seem that you need to supply the source code for any portion of the game engine that is directly copied into your runtime version, but not your own code/data as it would not be classified as a modification of the original code, but an adjunct to it.
In order to clear up all/any problems, what you would need would be for the applicable portion of the game engine code to be released in a similar fashion to the Bison parser program in the above example.
encrypting the blend file would be useless. If the user can launch the game, it means that he can read your blend, and if he can read it, he can decrypt it and do what he want with. It’s all the problems of DRMs, if you provide the crypted content, the decrypter and the key, then crypting is useless.
Those who want to piracy your work will be able to do it.
Those who want to see how it’s done to increase their skill may not want to spend time to decrypt it. Bad for the legimitate user, useless to prevent piracy. I call this a bad system.
GPL don’t say that you must provide the source with the binary. It says that you must make the source available. You can distribute your executable, and make your .blend available in your website, or by email request. As long as you provide it to those who ask it, there is no problems
That’s a fantastic article Setanta. Straight to my favorites.
I’m not sure if the Blender run-time parser is on an unrestricted licence in the same way that the Bison one is in the above example though.
In regard to the encryption - I was just thinking out loud. Good point though. Yes in the scenario above, the decrypt algorithm would be available in the GPLed source of the runtime engine.
So I guess now I have a clearer question of what I need to ask…
Can the .blend file that represents an interactive runtime be hidden from the end user without violating Blender’s GPL ?
Hey - should I post that in a seperate thread, or does it still come under “What are our rights in Blender”
Okay enough already.
Is there any court case saying what this “linked” is?
As far as I know, it’s possible for court to prove that linking is something a compiler does. So any linking with no compiler does not fall under the GPL (or whatever ambrivian thoose opensource monkeys come up with)
Blender games are glued to the blender player and not compiled into the code. (Just as maya ‘runs’ on Linux and is not compiled into the code).
You have the option to make your content ‘open content’, but you don’t have to. If you distribute the blender player you should also distribute the player source (or at least point to a site where someone can dl the code).
Now how do you make your glued content copy secure? You can’t. But it’s copyright protected. You own the copyrights and others do not. You are allowed to distribute the game in a password encripted zip, but it will be possible for anyone to get assets out of your game with a copy of blender. But not legal unless you explicit say so.
Forgive me if I’m way off base here but aren’t THESEcompiled stand-alones? I don’t see a seperate player and when I first discovered Blender, I downloaded and ran these before I installed blender, so the player must be incorporated somehow.
Where does the blender code stop and the creator’s code start?
Sorry if it sounds like I’m harping on, but now I’ve got going, I’d really like to be clear about where I stand if some student takes my model of the college and turns it into a halflife map or something and claims it as theirs. I’d prefer to protect my work pro-actively than re-actively if possible.
Granted - nothing’s going to stop a dedicated hacker who wants to get into the product, but at the moment, Joe Ordinary with a copy of Blender can do it.