[Bf-committers] Re: motion capture blender

[Matthias for Blender]

Point taken. I herewith put my previously published code regarding 
Motion Capture under GPL license. Enjoy ;-) . The times where 
Quaternions were magic that need to be hidden from the competitor are 
long over :-P .

The fundamental difference between using MoCap device support and 
importing MoCap data files is the possibility of realtime visualization 
of the MoCap session, possibly even live recording.

Although I did not read myself into the details of Blender, I assumed 
that Blender allows this kind of live rendering and recording, either 
through the animation editor, or through its gme engine. Am I right?

Importing MoCap files is nice, but you still need a $6000 software 
(kaydara products, for example (now Alias)) on top of your $10000 
hardware to record the initial motion.

Matthias


On Dec 23, 2004, at 11:07 AM, Jean-Michel Smith wrote:

> Regarding licensing:
>
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:22:20 -0500, Matthias for Blender
> <blender3d at matthiasm.com> wrote:
>> Anyway, I hope the code helps somewhat. I'll be happy to officially
>> LGPL it, with the limitation to Blender and directly derived work
>> though (which would not harm any other part of Blender, the GPL or
>> LGPL).
>
> The GPL explicitly forbids ADDING restrictions, so by adding a clause
> "GPLed only for blender and direct derivatives" you actually VIOLATE
> the GPL (see fsf.org for details on this).
>
> I gather you don't want your code falling into a competitor's hands.
> If you're concerned about a competitor using or releasing competing
> free software, the GPL offers you some protection in that it insures
> that said work must be freely available under its terms (which means
> you can borrow from your competitor's contributions as well), but it
> doesn't prevent your competitor from using the code at all.  If you're
> concerned about a competitor (or someone else) taking your code and
> using it in a proprietary program, the GPL offers excellent protection
> here, while the LGPL offers quite a bit less protection (it is more
> akin to a FreeBSD style license in many respects, which is why Richard
> Stallman, author of both licenses, discourages its use except in
> specific instances).
>
> I don't know how this integrates with Blender's licensing.  You could
> dual license under the Blender license (this gives blender.org leeway
> to use the code in BLENDER-only value added packages I think) and the
> GPL.   You won't be able to restrict it to blender and blender-only
> derivatives, but you will restrict it to Free Software projects only
> ... which goes a long way toward what I *think* you're trying to do,
> without violating the license your trying to use ;-).
>
> Of course, by GPLing it you can still sell your code under different
> licensing terms, as you do retain full copyright on it.  The only
> thing you can't do is "un-GPL" it later.
>
> Hope this helps to clarify things somewhat ... I'd get in touch with
> the folks at fsf.org if you really want to dig into the details.
>
> BTW - I agree adding support for such a tool can only be a good thing
> for the blender community, so I'm obviuosly hopoing you'll GPL the
> code (though of course I do not have said software in my basement
> either, so I won't be one to benefit from it directly).
>
> good luck with whatever you choose to do!
>
> Jean
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at projects.blender.org
> http://projects.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>