= LICENSE FOR 3D MEDIA =
I am a wannabe 3d artist and I created some works with blender, I
would like to distribute them under a free (as in speech) license, but
I don't know wich one is the best to use. There are a lot of discussion
on forums of free games about the best license for their 3d media and
there is not a clear answer.
I would like to apply to computer graphics the same concepts of free
software (the 4 freedoms of free software) and I would like that others
can reuse my work in their works.
I know that free software foundation says that art should not be free
bacause art is a creative process, but I think that there are a lot of
cases where the production model of software can be applied to computer
graphics, for example it would be useful to have 3d models of
standardized things (cars, motorcycles, computers, military vehicles,
uniforms ...), textures of common materials, 3d Reconstructions of real
or imaginary cities...
I evaluated these licenses: GPL, LGPL, CREATIVE COMMONS licenses,
Blender Artistic license (from now BAL) (adapted from Perl Artistic
license) and I have some doubts.
If there are other licenses that fit best my goal please report them.
= MIXING TWO OR MORE WORKS =
I think that reuse of models is important but if I interpreted
licenses correctly reuse of models is problematic because there are a
lot of models under different licenses and these models can't be mixed.
Software can link dynamically to a library and so it can use non-free
libraries or free libraries under another license. The non-free library
can be rewritten using the same interface (the interface isn't
protected by copyrights).
3d models can't link dynamically (correct me if I am wrong) and they
need to be linked with other things (a lot of other things), like other
models, sounds, textures, files that describes the movements of the
characters, settings of the materials, ...
Am I allowed to mix two models from a repository, for example model A
under GPL, model B under BAL all togeter with a model C (that was
created by me) in an animation? I don't think that I'm allowed.
Am I allowed to mix my model with a texture under a free license
(license A) and distribute my model under a different license (license
B) (specifying that the texture is under license A)? Are the textures
linked dynamically or statically? What if I uv map a texture?
I see that the gpl3 draft tries to solve the issue of statically
mixing works under different licenses, what do you think about it? Can
the solution of gpl3 be applied to 3d works?
Does the cc-by permit to mix works under this license with works under
Most of 3d games have modular characters that can wear different
armour pieces and wield different weapons. If a make an armor for a
character created for a game engine with this feature, is it linked
Is a work created by mixing different models of different authors from
a repository (for example a complex animation) considered a "collective
work" by cc licenses? If it is, what is the difference?
There are some sites that publish free 3d models (like http://www.
katorlegaz.com/index.php?a=download&c=Blender_3D_Model_Repository) so I
think that the reuse problem is the most important.
= RENDERED IMAGE =
Who is the copyright holder of the rendered image? Is it a derivative
work or an independent work? (Blender aristic license says that the
copyrights of the rendered image belongs to whoever generated them)
Is rendering like compiling a software for licenses like gpl?
== CONCLUSION ==
What is the best free license for 3d media?
Sorry if it has been discussed but searching your archive is
difficult. In this case point me to the correct thread.
= LINKS =
Naviga senza limiti con 4 Megabps di velocita' a soli 19,95 Euro al mese, ATTIVA SUBITO e hai 2 MESI GRATIS!
In piu', se sei raggiunto dalla rete Tiscali, telefoni senza pagare il canone Telecom. Comincia subito a risparmiare!