Some models --> Licensing

[Auria]

What exactly is the "source", as referred to by the GPL, I think, is in a legal grey zone and subject of much debate. I prefer CC-BY-SA 3 too, for this reason

[Arthur]

One would think that the .blend file is the source if modeled with Blender.
It's worse with audio, though.

[Pixel]

One thing about text-based model formats like AC3D, the model itself was it's own source code. In fact, you could modify it directly by editing it like a source code file. (I have no problem with B3D at all, AC3D came to mind as an example because I had experience with it from STK 0.6.)

My concern about the GPL is not so much modification (CC-BY-SA is pretty much the same on that as far as I can tell), or the definition of source (I agree, the .blend file should be considered the "source code" for a 3D model.)

My concern is the definition of "linking". In standard GPL usage, when an executable is linked to a GPL'd library, the executable and if released publicly must itself also be released under the GPL, including by extension the source code of both. My understanding of the FSF's opinion is that the GPL does NOT consider any difference between static and dynamic linking.

How does this apply to something like 3D models? If a GPL model and BY-CC-SA 3.0 model are used in the same project, are they "linked" together when used together and thus both required to be GPL?

For example, say we have a CC-BY-SA 3 kart running on a track released under the GPL. Is this close enough to "linking" source code files that the GPL would be violated since the result (the race itself) is a combination of the two models?

This seems very much like "dynamic linking" in programming. The DLL (or SO) libs combine with the executable at runtime to produce effectively one program.

EDIT: If one modifies a GPL model, then their modified model is bound to the GPL as well, if publicly released. I think most of us will agree with that. Can that be considered "static linking"?

[Auria]

Pixel, agreed, the whole idea of "linking" is totally irrelevant and misleading for data files. This being said, I believe the general interpretation is that it is fine to open files released under a different licenses; the definition of linking given by the GPL, IIRC, is that of using common data structures in memory, which is not applicable to data files.

[STKRudy85]

Pixel, agreed, the whole idea of "linking" is totally irrelevant and misleading for data files. This being said, I believe the general interpretation is that it is fine to open files released under a different licenses; the definition of linking given by the GPL, IIRC, is that of using common data structures in memory, which is not applicable to data files.

I don't really understand if it's another problem or a discussion about point of view
Auria je serai heureux que tu me résume cette idée en français STP ?

I'm actually animating catapult :
http://stkaddons.tuxfamily.org/addon-vi ... e=Catapult

This is licence of Glests models by Tucho :

http://stkaddons.tuxfamily.org/addon-view.php?addons=karts&title=Catapult

[Auria]

STKRudy85, on discutait simplement du fait que la license GPL se concentre sur le code et utilise du vocabulaire très lié aux logiciels, et donc est p0lus ou moins appropriée lorsque utilisée pour des graphismes parce que le vocabulaire référrant à du code utilisé par la GPL est difficilement compréhensible dans le contexte de graphisme. C'est pourquoi on préfère ne pas utiliser la GPL pour des graphismes (bien qu'il soit généralement admis de permettre l'utilisation de la GPL dans un tel cas, dans ce cas on considère le "code source" comme étant le code source)

[STKRudy85]

The last person who don't answered me yet are toren1994 and tuxthepinguin.

At this stage : valid characters are
(11)
Audacity ( will be exported soon )
Bigbuckbunny ( 2 new version I had to re-up mine )
Chinchilla
Chuck
Bambou ( will be improved soon )
Proog ( Animated but problem rest )
Python
Rinky
Eviltux
MrIceblock
Catapult
----------------I won't animate this characters
bunny
bob
Monkey
Penny
Frankie ( I've started an armature ... I will upload model in a few days )


And tracks :
(8)
Mystery island ( to be ported ... soon. May be included in main package )
Icetrack ( I have to remove non free textures )
Industry ( must be ported , where I can find blend file ? )

------------------------Battle arenas
Moon base ( to be ported ... soon )
Skate park ( I have to remove non free textures. To be ported ... soon )
Space battle ( I have to remove non free textures and improve zippers )
A lot of work in pespective

--------------------------- won't be ported ( have non free textures ):
Nightclub ( not like this )
Inthehouse ( I've ever done my best to get this track less uggly )

Personal message :
Asciimonster I'm angry after you "it's understand" your work is under free license ?
But is specified nowhere (and this is why I contact old freegamedev members to ask them about licensing)
at this day I've lost tarentula character's animation worktime idem for plee the bear and artmuseum .
I don't lose hope, as I said I'm waiting for toren1994 and Tuxthepinguin reply

So tell us about licensing to :
The cube (?)
Thedishes (?)

I hope this information will help xapantu to his new stkaddons website

[charlie]

I'm actually animating catapult :
http://stkaddons.tuxfamily.org/addon-vi ... e=Catapult

That's pretty neat. It might look better if the catapult was primed and the guy was sat on the catapult rather than it being in front of him - which would make driving hard as he can't see!

[STKRudy85]

Yes I've done something like this sitting on it , it will be good looking but not so original (winnig : dancinf-- losing:catapulted )
but STK=character +1

[Pixel]

Pixel, agreed, the whole idea of "linking" is totally irrelevant and misleading for data files. This being said, I believe the general interpretation is that it is fine to open files released under a different licenses; the definition of linking given by the GPL, IIRC, is that of using common data structures in memory, which is not applicable to data files.

Could it be argued then that since the "data files" are not in and of themselves executable code, some sections of the GPL written explicitly for executable code (or rather, source code and compilation of the same to executable code), can not reasonably apply to the data files?

[Auria]

Pixel, agreed, the whole idea of "linking" is totally irrelevant and misleading for data files. This being said, I believe the general interpretation is that it is fine to open files released under a different licenses; the definition of linking given by the GPL, IIRC, is that of using common data structures in memory, which is not applicable to data files.

Could it be argued then that since the "data files" are not in and of themselves executable code, some sections of the GPL written explicitly for executable code (or rather, source code and compilation of the same to executable code), can not reasonably apply to the data files?

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not sure there even exists a consensus on that. But I would tend to think so.