PDA

View Full Version : The coding and a code of ethic...


denisT
07-25-2011, 04:47 AM
i don't think that i took the wrong place for this thread.

the max script coding is the livehood for most of us. i'm browsing for interesting ideas, solutions, etc. every day. i'm using somebody else's ideas in my development. i'm using open and free resources and it's absolutely OK for me.
but:
-- i've never resold somebody else's ideas
-- if i keep the original code in the original form i always give the reference to the original author
-- i've never hidden (encrypted) not my code and the fact of its using

it's not a secret that an encrypted mxs script is not secure at all. and it's hard to understand for me when i see a piece of code 100% stolen from an open source being included in commercial tool (or desirably commercial).

what do you think Bros?

lo
07-25-2011, 08:24 AM
I think not a lot of people on this forum are actively selling their scripts publicly, most including myself are hobbyists and/or developing inhouse tools. I don't bother giving credit in my code for inhouse tools (not that I would normally find myself using complete blocks of someone elses code), simply because noone's ever going to read it but me.

Of course I do agree that if anyone is releasing their scripts either for free or commercially, they should acknowledge all the people that are responsible for it.

floatingworld
07-25-2011, 09:02 AM
gee good luck denis if your're making money from scripts. I just code to make life easier for myself. Is there a lot of money selling maxscripts? Are there maxscript millionaires out there?
I'm happy for people to look at whatever I come up with , use it, improve it...whatever...let's not get above ourselves here...it's just scripting...it's not c sharp compiling applications...

lo
07-25-2011, 09:27 AM
it's not c sharp compiling applications...

A lot of it is starting to be. But what's the difference between precompiled code copyrights and realtime compiled code copyrights? They're both code...

lo
07-25-2011, 09:31 AM
I think the bigger problem is discerning when a block of code can be copyrighted. What constitutes an "original" piece of code?

Denis, would you consider the on-the-fly c# compilation function that you love to use to be original code (either yours or someone elses) ?
The concept is original... but the code is just using prebuilt dotnet compilation libraries...

floatingworld
07-25-2011, 09:56 AM
yes there is a creative aspect to coding....there's a guy who was just mucking around with incrementally moving pivot points of objects and copying, rotating, animating linked it to some audio controllers......he came up with some interesting stuff, wrapped it up in a thing called superflow, and although the code is absolutely basic and elementary, he did amazing things with it. That's originality...the mechanics of the coding is absolutely secondary ...

lo
07-25-2011, 10:42 AM
yes there is a creative aspect to coding....there's a guy who was just mucking around with incrementally moving pivot points of objects and copying, rotating, animating linked it to some audio controllers......he came up with some interesting stuff, wrapped it up in a thing called superflow, and although the code is absolutely basic and elementary, he did amazing things with it. That's originality...the mechanics of the coding is absolutely secondary ...

That doesn't answer the question... if we take the example of Superflow... what part of the tool is copyrighted, or original? The idea of a chain of objects set up in hierarchy? Linking it to an audio controller?

Ruramuq
07-25-2011, 12:09 PM
inevitable.., somebody encrypted already free/open mxs code but claim it as original somehow.. probably to get some credit, most people wants recognition..

1. Ideas.
Makes no sense to reverse rights over it. similar ideas are way too common. but despite that, its common that people steal ideas to claim some kind of originality, happens all the time.
2. research/solutions.
Once public, no reason to claim rights over it, except authorship
3. implementation.
Too easy to modify it and claim false originality. people does this all the time(unethical). Unless its evidently copy/pasted | or similar, not much to do.
4. originality(discovery /authorship).
The most important IMO, as it gives you the credit you deserve. for me it's a matter of hierarchy. but proving you are an original creator, does not mean that somebody else can't have the same idea, originally.

anyway, I don't believe on things like, I was the first to do this tool, so I have rights over the idea.because many people had old ideas not made public explicitly , but shared somehow. Its logically expected that many people would try to hide this fact, for personal benefit.

All this is identical to 'the use of tutorials/internet'.
if you somehow force a graduated cg student to describe everything derived from tutorials/dvds/internet/copycat teachers/step by step stuff..., most demo reels would be tagged as disappointing, because they are not original at all, just copy/pasted.
good if they wanna be manpower, otherwise not hard to describe most of them as unethical.

but it's "commonly accepted", "because everybody does it"(and ethics is defined by groups of people with common purposes, and not because of mathematical definitions of right and wrong)

this is a world popularized with opportunism but not dominated by it


.

lo
07-25-2011, 12:27 PM
good points, I agree with just about everything you said.

but proving you are an original creator, does not mean that somebody else can't have the same idea, originally.
Tell me about it, no matter what I'll post Denis will claim to have already written a superior tool years ago :D

Panayot
07-25-2011, 03:07 PM
That doesn't answer the question... if we take the example of Superflow... what part of the tool is copyrighted, or original? The idea of a chain of objects set up in hierarchy? Linking it to an audio controller?
Well, this kind of discussions never change anything, but just by chance I worked on this Superflow script and feel need to reply here. First to say, I work on in-door scripts and never made my own commercial scripts, mostly because a lot of people see something evil in this (!) So, this script was exception and I was hired to write it and has a lot of doubts before starting. The original idea about hierarchy (if this even correct), is Public and Free. What Ian Clammer intended to sell is the product. If even this has no sense then yep, kill everyone who made anything commercial (including programming).

[edit] Just to append that I agree in general with what Ruramuq said, expect the last conclusion about ethics. If we agree with this we s'd reject the Law as well and go to live in anarchy.

lo
07-25-2011, 03:11 PM
Just to be clear, I have no gripe with Superflow or any other commercial scripts, nor did I intend to say that nothing about them is original or creative.
My point was that it is a very blurry line between public domain common knowledge and original copyrightable code.

Panayot
07-25-2011, 03:21 PM
Just to be clear, I have no gripe with Superflow or any other commercial scripts, nor did I intend to say that nothing about them is original or creative.
My point was that it is a very blurry line between public domain common knowledge and original copyrightable code.Ok, dont worry, I hope my thought above is clear too. ;)

denisT
07-25-2011, 04:11 PM
i don't have anything against commercial tools. for almost 20 years in this business i sold myself a lot of tools. because every tool that i made was paid by a company which i worked for.
i'm not against of the using somebody else's code and not against when anyone uses mine. if you put any piece of your code into an open resource you automatically loosing any copyright to it, and you have to expect that the code might be freely used without any credit given to you. it's absolutely right and there is nothing to do with it.

but... if anyone puts some free code into his own, hides this fact by encrypting, and sells it... in this case may me talk about some ethic norms.

Panayot
07-25-2011, 06:30 PM
i don't have anything against commercial tools. for almost 20 years in this business i sold myself a lot of tools. because every tool that i made was paid by a company which i worked for.
i'm not against of the using somebody else's code and not against when anyone uses mine. if you put any piece of your code into an open resource you automatically loosing any copyright to it, and you have to expect that the code might be freely used without any credit given to you. it's absolutely right and there is nothing to do with it.

but... if anyone puts some free code into his own, hides this fact by encrypting, and sells it... in this case may me talk about some ethic norms. I'm with you on this one, maybe ever most of the folks here too, but whats next? What we can do about?

denisT
07-25-2011, 07:22 PM
I'm with you on this one, maybe ever most of the folks here too, but whats next? What we can do about?

i just want to let some people know that i don't like when my code taken from any free resource is used by somebody in a public tool but in an encrypted form. i don't like to be involved in any commerce without knowing that.
using my code makes us 'partners', and i have a right to share my code and the way of its using. so i don't see any ethic problem to decrypt whole code and post it for an easy access.

Panayot
07-25-2011, 10:33 PM
i just want to let some people know that i don't like when my code taken from any free resource is used by somebody in a public tool but in an encrypted form. i don't like to be involved in any commerce without knowing that.
using my code makes us 'partners', and i have a right to share my code and the way of its using. so i don't see any ethic problem to decrypt whole code and post it for an easy access.Ah, you have a plan. :)
I'm a step behind 'cause I even don't know how to encrypt mse files.

denisT
07-25-2011, 10:41 PM
Ah, you have a plan. :)
I'm a step behind 'cause I even don't know how to encrypt mse files.
usually i don't do it because i don't have a reason. anyway i can't use any stolen code.

Pjanssen
07-27-2011, 10:52 AM
if you put any piece of your code into an open resource you automatically loosing any copyright to it, and you have to expect that the code might be freely used without any credit given to you. it's absolutely right and there is nothing to do with it.Are you sure about this? Technically I don't think you can 'loose' the copyright of your own work, but I think you mean losing 'exclusive' copyright.
I suppose there could be two cases: if you include a license with the code, it depends entirely on the license. If you don't, then ... ? A lawyer should probably answer that question. :)

Ruramuq
07-27-2011, 12:41 PM
but decrypting scripts, makes me think, that you loose all your rights. If there were such thing as code ethics. I don't think decrypting would get any support legally.

the same as one can get annoyed because someone is getting false credit for your code.
the same as one can get annoyed because someone is decrypting your code that it's supposed to be absolutely private.

kees
07-27-2011, 06:50 PM
i just want to let some people know that i don't like when my code taken from any free resource is used by somebody in a public tool but in an encrypted form. i don't like to be involved in any commerce without knowing that.
using my code makes us 'partners', and i have a right to share my code and the way of its using. so i don't see any ethic problem to decrypt whole code and post it for an easy access.

That to me feels like a strange answer.
If I would use some code of yours that was released freely we are suddenly partners?! Or it suddenly gives you the right to start messing with tools I release?!

That makes you one scary, vindictive coder and I'll make sure to stay away from any code you 'share'!

JHN
07-27-2011, 08:23 PM
I also wonder what the implications of decrypting really are. I know it can be done with maxscript and heard (I don't know how to do this myself) that the code is then freely readable, via relatively simple means. Also in csharp you have the redgate reflector tool (not free anymore unfortunately) it opens up csharp dll's and exe's for inspection and debugging, only to be masked via obfuscation. What does that mean...

In the end I think it's about the license provided with the tool/code and the goodwill of others to not missuse your hard work. I think it's hard to claim pieces of code when published on public sites, I think the best you can do is being flattered about the "great" use your code is providing. I myself use c# classes I find on the net for manipulation of ini files or listview sorters or whatever, it's for commercial use (in our company), and most of the times I credit the author and put a link to the source it came from. But it's basically the same idea.

-Johan

denisT
07-27-2011, 08:24 PM
That to me feels like a strange answer.
If I would use some code of yours that was released freely we are suddenly partners?! Or it suddenly gives you the right to start messing with tools I release?!

That makes you one scary, vindictive coder and I'll make sure to stay away from any code you 'share'!

do you think it's too hard to ask my permition to use my code for a commercial purpose?

PEN
07-27-2011, 09:03 PM
Post your work for free and it is saying, go ahead and use it. If you don't want some one using your code then don't post it. Do I think that it is right for some one to encrypt your code into their script and sell it, no I don't but how are you going to stop that if you are posting your code freely on the internet. I think that if you are going and cracking some ones encrypted script to see if your code is there in the first place you are making the bigger mistake in judgement. If I encrypt a script so that I can sell it then no one should be digging into it.

kees
07-27-2011, 10:18 PM
do you think it's too hard to ask my permition to use my code for a commercial purpose?

Its not too hard and its probably the right thing to do.
Its also fair that you get credit somewhere in the tool.

However, if somebody doesn't do any of that, you do not have the right to consider yourself a partner and/or decrypt their scripts or any other 'revenge' action.

By releasing your code for free (without clear restrictions in the code) you are the one signaling to people your are sharing this for others to use in whatever way they feel is useful to them.

If its THAT important to you (as in: you become so angry you want to decrypt scripts and drag somebodies name/tool through the mud) then just simply don't release those pieces of code. Or clearly label the beginning of the code with something like:

"I will decrypt your scripts and go online bitching if you do not credit me for this code"
(BTW, you had to decrypt the script first before even knowing it was your code, which in my opinion, is breaking way more ethics then using your code that was freely available online)

That way, the rest of us know to stay away from it.

You should also realise that somebody else may copy your code, paste it on a blog without giving you credit, then a 3rd person reads the blog and copies it assuming its legit.
So you might be bitching at a person who did not realize you wrote the original code.

Its such a mess, that I think everybody would prefer you just don't release any code online so we don't have to worry about stepping on your toes.

denisT
07-27-2011, 10:49 PM
i have to repeat... i don't talk about the law, i talk about ethics.
i think that is not morally right to show anyone else's as my own.
i think that is not right to sell anything that i got from anyone else for free.

here is a story. couple weeks ago i found some tool for sell. it was absolutely useless for me because i wrote similar tools many years ago. but the tool was looking too familiar for me by functionality.
it costs a little and i bought it. it's encrypted but ...
so i saw my functions there in my original transcription. the person didn't want to learn, he didn't change his or my stuff to match the quality. he didn't give me a credit, or informed me about possible selling.
of course i don't want to do anything with it... i leave it to him.
but all this was really annoyed me...

end of story. there is nothing to discuss here.

Pjanssen
07-27-2011, 11:17 PM
of course i don't want to do anything with it... i leave it to him.
but all this was really annoyed me...
It's not a complicated matter as far as I'm concerned. If that kind of use annoys you, you should release your code under a license that prevents it. Like GPL for example. If it happens then, you have a point to be annoyed and possibly take action.
If you share your code without any license or restrictions, then in my opinion, you can and should expect any sort of use of it (or 'abuse' as you may see it).

By adding a license you don't only have a legal document to fall back on should it be necessary, but you also indicate to a potential user how you do or do not want it to be used without ambiguity.

kees
07-27-2011, 11:45 PM
but all this was really annoyed me...


I totally get it annoys you. It would annoy me too.
But there are many people out there who only care about making money, even if they have some skills. (just look at all the iphone clones out there).

I think you just have to accept that some people don't care about ethics or 'doing the right thing' at all. You just have to surround yourself by those people who do give you appreciation for what you do and the code and tricks you share and ignore everybody else.

If somebody grabs some piece of code from any of my tools and sells it, I just ignore them. They will forever be lame. Its like a sports athlete winning a gold medal by using doping/steroids.

I never understood why they get any satisfaction out of winning when they know they cheated. But for some people, that makes no difference. They just want to get ahead no matter what the cost or how much they have to cheat.

But I also do not believe in trying to put too many rules or limitations on code sharing or sharing of ideas. In the end, we should all be able to build on each other ideas and feel free to explore similar ideas to somebody else. But straight out clones of your code and selling it, yea...that's lame.

plastic
07-28-2011, 12:56 AM
I'm not an expert on copyright, far from it, but here is what I think.

Unauthorized use of code someone posted in a public forum is a copyright violation, however if the code comes with no license, it may be hard do enforce that. It's a gray area, I suppose.
You can take it to court, but there is nothing to win.

However, unencrypting/cracking a piece of code and publishing the source may actually be a crime in the US.
see: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act)

PEN
07-28-2011, 03:29 PM
I agree Denis that I would not want that to happen to me. I have had cases where my work as been copied and then posted for free without due credit. I have in those cases contacted the vendor and explained that what they are doing is wrong. In both cases it was pulled down as neither had considered what they were doing was wrong. Both were young and new to the business.

I would consider contacting the person and telling them that you want it pulled down, my guess is they will. If they are a prick and just don't care then one of two things can be done, release your tool that does the same thing for free, I'm sure yours would be better anyways and advertise the crap out of it. Give it the same name or similar name as theirs as well so that any one searching for it finds yours at the same time. Or, you can just release your code that makes it possible and suggest that they write their own tool that does the same.

I'm sure that I have grabbed code of yours at times and used lines of it, I would never usually grab whole function as I want to write them my self. In the cases that I have and have used them I have given credit in the code when I have remembered to. I don't know if any of that is in code that I sell, there might be tools that have gone to specific clients where I have used a dotNet function where C# is used or something of the like but again this is free code that is distributed freely without restrictions on the internet. If you don't want your code used don't post it. It is kind of like, if you don't want to have your tools cracked and on a warz site don't release them.

Ruramuq
07-28-2011, 04:13 PM
There are many commercial scripts, that are easy to do..
I'm considering the idea start picking some and create new own versions, free..
--

I too think there is a change he never thought he was doing something bad,
depends on how much relevance has denisT code on that tool.

lo
07-28-2011, 04:20 PM
so i saw my functions there in my original transcription.
I would be annoyed as well... but would it have been any less offensive if he had changed the variable names and a few other irrelevant things? At what point would it have stopped being "your code"?

TheGrak
07-28-2011, 05:37 PM
A couple thoughts:

"However, unencrypting/cracking a piece of code and publishing the source may actually be a crime in the US."
If you post it anonymously, whos going to jail?

"At what point would it have stopped being "your code"?
When the code changes. More than variable names, the actual functionality of the code.

"If somebody grabs some piece of code from any of my tools and sells it, I just ignore them. They will forever be lame. "
Unless they make a lot of money off of the tool, or get a lucrative contract because of it. I shared a script with someone that converts point cloud data into 3d polygons. They used this code in a piece of software that images seafloors. They sold their services to oil companies and made a lot of money searching for oil wells. I received nothing. That's what happens when you ignore them.

"It is kind of like, if you don't want to have your tools cracked and on a warz site don't release them."
It's not this simple. Replace 'tools' with 'dvds'. I, for one, would be much further behind if I hadn't purchased and watched your rigging DVDs. Same with Bobo's DVDs.

My personal stance on this is simple: denisT is right. If you steal someone else's code and then sell it, you should have your tool decrypted and released for free. The free version should have better advertising and more functionality. And the author of the commercial script should be educated as to why they shouldn't steal code and sell it. Even if they were unaware of the code being stolen. They copied it from somewhere.

But let me raise another concern: what about the opposite side of the fence? Let's say I come across some sweet commercial script and decide that I want to write my own version of it. Is that stealing? Not even downloading the script, not even looking at the code, but writing it from scratch. For me, that's the grey area. How upset would tyson be if someone wrote buildingGenerator and released it for free? or kilad's ghostTown? or a free version of Gould's Illustrate? If the code if fundamentally different, is there a problem? At what point do we succumb to being patent trolls?

PEN
07-28-2011, 05:49 PM
"It is kind of like, if you don't want to have your tools cracked and on a warz site don't release them."
It's not this simple. Replace 'tools' with 'dvds'. I, for one, would be much further behind if I hadn't purchased and watched your rigging DVDs. Same with Bobo's DVDs.


You can down load my DVD series from Youtube on most days:S, there is just no way to stop it. I didn't say it was right. According to Chris as CGA exactly 1 DVD sold in China and 0 have ever sold in Russia.


But let me raise another concern: what about the opposite side of the fence? Let's say I come across some sweet commercial script and decide that I want to write my own version of it. Is that stealing? Not even downloading the script, not even looking at the code, but writing it from scratch. For me, that's the grey area. How upset would tyson be if someone wrote buildingGenerator and released it for free? or kilad's ghostTown? or a free version of Gould's Illustrate? If the code if fundamentally different, is there a problem? At what point do we succumb to being patent trolls?


There are many commercial scripts, that are easy to do..
I'm considering the idea start picking some and create new own versions, free..
--

I too think there is a change he never thought he was doing something bad,
depends on how much relevance has denisT code on that tool.


This is something that pisses me off a bit, some one is trying to make a living from their work and some one else comes along and releases a similar tool for nothing. Why? It is like people think that making money is a bad thing and they should get or give everything for free. My car rig used to sell well until others sorted out how to do it and then just started giving it away for free. I wish that I had sold PEN Attribute Holder for a dollar, I would have made a profit on it and paid for the development of it 10 times over. Why shouldn't I get paid for delivering a tool to the industry?

That all being said I don't like the idea of someone taking some one elses code and selling it. That is just wrong. But if you sell a character rig TheGrak that uses a method that I have described here on this forum should I get paid for it because you have used it? How does code differ? Can I down load it and then give it away on my site because the IK/FK blend is how I showed it?

denisT
07-28-2011, 07:12 PM
i don't like an idea to replicate anyone's commercial tool and post it for free. i fully respect the people who could make any money selling max scripts. believe me it's very hard to do.

the story that i told is different. there are several things those made everything bad.

-- posting my samples, functions (never tools and rarely final solutions) for free, i kinda proud myself when people use it or find it helpful. but i want to see how they use it, or to know why it doesn't work for them
-- i fully understand that any my idea or code might be used in commercial purpose. that's OK.
-- i know that i might not get a credit for my code. (the code might be considerably changed, original source forgotten... there are reasons).

but the person who took my code knew for sure were he got it, who made it... he didn't change a line. he put my code inside yours amateur code not trying to understand how it works. and after that he tried to sell it, to get exclusive benefits and credits.

i made some research and found that i was wrong when i said that when you publish any code on free resources you automatically loose a copyright.
that's not true. i can say that a code for free, free to use and share... but it doesn't mean that in the other situation, later i will not ask for my copyright or credit. only code licensed by GNU/GPL can partly guaranty its free use.

denisT
07-28-2011, 07:41 PM
the result of my other research and some consultations...

the max script decrypting is not illegal. a max script can't function in encrypted form, an it must be decrypted before use. 3DS max does do it. does it do it illegally? of course not. if anyone uses official built-in max functions to encrypt and decrypt scripts what does he do wrong?
how an author of an encrypted script can feel yourself the owner if he can't decrypt the script because he doesn't know a key. but this question not to person who knows the key, it's a question to Autodesk that designed this security system.

The cracking of a script (open or encrypted) is technically illegal. by cracking i mean making some changes in code to give unlimited access for example, not allowed by the author of the tool.
Publishing, distributing, or selling anyone else's code without the author's permission is illegal. it's against the copyright law.
If a code doesn't have any copyright it's free to share and use. To mark anything with unwarranted copyright is illegal.

Ruramuq
07-28-2011, 07:42 PM
some one is trying to make a living from their work and some one else comes along and releases a similar tool for nothing. Why? It is like people think that making money is a bad thing and they should get or give everything for free. My car rig used to sell well until others sorted out how to do it and then just started giving it away for free. I wish that I had sold PEN Attribute Holder for a dollar, I would have made a profit on it and paid for the development of it 10 times over. Why shouldn't I get paid for delivering a tool to the industry?

@PEN
Should someone give up on the idea of releasing a free tool, so others can make money?
Of course, making money is not bad. is good to get support.
When I sale something I've created, I see it as "buying me time", for my life, for future development,etc

But anyone has to acknowledge that this is business, and has no relation to what someone deserves.
Business is never about fair price, or support to the author. Otherwise big companies would lower the price ridiculously, but they don't, they sale based on a balance analyzed from the market and their customers.(does your tool has a market? how big? for how long?)

There are many cases where price, makes no sense to me.
For example: Consider selling a tool for 100$, because its a "balanced price" to release a 'professional tool', not something made in one afternoon, but someone releases a quick similar tool, with many bugs, poor implementation etc, but still useful and with updates, for 25$ ?
In this case there are 3 obvious options:
- Free
- Try to compete with an even lower price and/or publicity/marketing
- Keep it 'private'.

Free sounds more attractive, as it would release me from extra obligatory work(bugs,etc), I still get ideas/comments, etc
Competing for low prices, IMO is bad. deteriorates the market even worst. selling stuff overpriced is bad too.
And keeping it private, well, the default.

Also the meaning of something under the context "commercial", matters:
For me if a tool has a price(any price)," it should justify that price" one way or another(not just support). If any person can do the same tool, then it's time to question oneself if the tool is really offering some exclusivity, and hence deserve a price, specially a big price.

The biggest problem comes from this cg industry,
@PEN, your true rival is you, and your good will of sharing knowledge:
Newcomers must struggle. Things must be very difficult for them. Otherwise they just copy/paste, that's the biggest problem, that affects you, me, everybody.

We give value to things that requires our own effort.
But now, people has lots of resources, free and easy.
The consequences of this is that the level has been raised a lot. this means that if you want to have a market, you have to create something far more advanced than anyone can do. or accept that anybody can release a free tool anytime.

but no way I'm going to agree about not releasing free tools, to favor commercial tools.

lo
07-28-2011, 07:58 PM
My car rig used to sell well until others sorted out how to do it and then just started giving it away for free

Another way to look at it, is if you sell something that can easily be replicated, it does not have a great market value. I don't think you can copyright a rigging technique. :shrug:

TheGrak
07-28-2011, 08:15 PM
PEN makes good points.
This is something that pisses me off a bit, some one is trying to make a living from their work and some one else comes along and releases a similar tool for nothing. Why?
I can see 3 reasons:
1. they want to replace your tool with theirs, and steal your clients/users
2. they didn't know your tool existed, but have a need for the tool
3. they wanted to learn how to write a tool of that complexity, and thus needed examples to work from
For example, I wrote stretchy bones creator because I wanted to learn how to write a complex tool that provided real benefit. It was all based on a tutorial by tyson that showed how to rig faces with bones. After working on it for a month, I learned about bonyFace, another script that did similar things, and some not so similar things. But it was close enough to make me ask myself "Should I continue developing this tool? Am I taking away an individual's income stream by releasing this for free? Am I taking food off their table?". But at the end of the day, I'm just writing a tool for me to use. I gave it away because I thought it might help other people, and because I thought it might motivate others to provide help. Now, I realize that I haven't provided a tool to the industry, but as an example, I think it has context.


That all being said I don't like the idea of someone taking some one elses code and selling it. That is just wrong. But if you sell a character rig TheGrak that uses a method that I have described here on this forum should I get paid for it because you have used it? How does code differ? Can I down load it and then give it away on my site because the IK/FK blend is how I showed it?
This is a very good point. You can't control how shared information is used.
If I were to sell a rig that uses innovations by PEN, I would expect to pay some kind of fee. That's not unreasonable. If I developed something that was identical to PENs, but without knowledge of PEN's innovations, then I see no problem in selling it and keeping the profits. Should I have to pay a fee?

CGTalk Moderation
07-28-2011, 08:15 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.