Let me guess who you are voting for, if you are old enough...
But trumpish tactics wont work with us. You can spread all the lies you want,
the simple experience of an environnemnt where racers, drifters, bikers, gansta ricers, etc... can make the 3d world a lively and relaxed place, will destroy any false narrative you try to build and spread.
You are keeping to be offensive, offense has no place on JaR. It is good that you are permanently banned.
Maybe you could spend some time reading about philosopher kings instead of wasting it here.
That old book from Plato for example, The Republic, as it is the main guide for the basic management of the server.
oh well, I wrote "TURNS INTO a witch hunt"
I didnt make u directly responsible for it (turns into)
I know your intent was not a witch hunt, but that what it looks like for many users : overdone and destroying modder's motivation.
"No derivatives allowed means that you cannot make any changes to the model and noone else can make any changes to the model you have submitted to LFS - applies only for CGTrader, 3dlancer, free3d and 3dcadbrowser websites with their Royalty free license"
"The list of OK sites for LFS mods:
Quote :
Sketchfab - Creative Commons licenses, except BY-ND and BY-NC-ND
CGTrader - Royalty free license, no derivatives allowed
3dlancer.net - with Royalty free license, no derivatives allowed
blendswap.com - Creative Commons licenses, except BY-ND and BY-NC-ND
free3d.com - Royalty free license, no derivatives allowed
3dcadbrowser.com - Royalty free license, no derivatives allowed
Automation game - CC BY-NC-SA "
why are those sites listed as ok sources when those specific licenses explictely forbid derivatives or commercial use ?
I dont want to continue write here again, am wasting time with this. Do what u think fair and good luck !
The issue here is not retopology in itself, but the fact that the modder states it is his original work.
It would the same issue for an imported model under CC BY for example.
But it would be perfectly ok to "retopo" that same CC BY model, when the original author's name is provided.
In short : retopology can't be claimed an original work, a license must be provided as for the other imports.
-------
Am sorry that I can't find any BY SA mod with forbidden derivatives. I feel confused, I wouldn't write such an assertion only to bother people. I must have been mistaken, or idk what happened.
In the same idea of consistency, I would disallow licenses which have a NC and/or a ND equivalent clause.
disallow ND (no derivative) because of the removed wheels problem I wrote in my previous post, unless the modder keeps the wheels and sets an invisible material... but almost all imported models need some fixes, stitches, up axis rotation, etc, wich modify the original mesh, and thus breach the no derivative clause. It is impossible to handle geometry checks in the long run.
disallow NC (no commercial use) because a LFS mod is used in the commercial context of LFS, wich is a business that hosts and sells access to download the mods for use in the sim, and displays some ads from IRL companies (bmw...). (authorization from author is needed for commercial use)
It is a bit of a pity that this mod import story turns into a witch hunt :
- you are not legally required to check the validity of the licenses. You act with good faith when you simply trust the provided source license.
You can't be responsible of being misled by the uploaders/hosts. At worst you will be asked to remove the mod if infrigement is proven. No big deal.
- most people making mods are only expressing their passion, I doubt there is any intent to bypass the copyright rules, or make the reviewers work hard(er). People just don't know how copyrights work, they are creative and excited and try alternate ways to make mods faster, without documenting and learning about copyrights mechanics. They are not working against LFS, but FOR LFS. That's what I see and read online. Dont misunderstand.
Why not witch hunt pirate photoshop/3ds max/ users ? and the same copyright tracking on textures and blueprints ? that would be much more consistent.
A last thought about importing parts of copyrighted materials. In the case of music (hiphop and rap are great examples), it ok to sample, or "extract a quote" of copyrighted materials.
It should be same for mods : creating a whole mod from many parts of copyrighted works should be acceptable.
In the end, why not make it all simpler and just relax the witch hunt ? We will never be able to handle the copyright checks in the long run. If it was possible, the copyright issues on uploaded models in 3D meshes databases would be already insignificant; because stolen source material wouldn't be so much abundant for download in the first place : they would be easily filtered out by the repository website.
Retopology means polygon reduction, it's only a trendy word for an old technique. Retopology is not about reconstructing polys from an existing clean model. That would be simply called a reproduction, or a derivative.
In the case of LFS mod, 'retopology' as it is used, is a form of plagiarism, it is no gray area, it is just fully wrong when it comes to licenses that forbid reproductions or derivatives.
"Plagiarism is the representation of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one's own original work." - Wikipedia.
By the way, do you realize that any imported object wich has wheels in its mesh, needs them to be removed for making a mod in LFS, and as such, the mod will be a derivative work simply because the original mesh has been changed ?
Yes, it's very unlikely that an author gets angry from having his object's wheel remove to make a mod, but still, it's a breach of "no derivatives" licenses.
So if u want to be really clean, the only choices are private agreement or public domain / CC BY / CC0 and some other uncommon free licenses like "license art libre" (https://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/), wich explicitely allow reproductions and derivatives.
edit :
it is also wrong in LFS to forbid derivatives when original model is CC BY SA or equivalent.
As it is now, LFS is breaching the SA clause.
CC BY SA want us to name the author and share any derivative work with the same license, so derivatives must stay allowed in LFS, as the original license states.