Like PEV said, you have a lack of understanding of some of these matters. I suggest you get current on this topic before commenting further.
If you are suggesting that the mesh is part of skin.dat then that is not correct.There is no mesh information in the Paintshed asset, other than the KUIDs of the assets where they can be found.
Does the phrase "there was a Paintshed mesh in progressive mesh format
and a skin" suggest one is within the other? If I meant to say that I would have said "there was a paintshed mesh in progressive mesh format
within a skin." I consider this a superfluous comment.
That's part of the point of the Paintshed - to enable user to create their own assets without getting involved with the detail of meshes. But part of the point is also to enable users to create assets that do not need to include meshes,therefore avoiding the issues related to copyright. It is a very effective way to give people access to the mesh without risking your copyright rights.
That is an interesting perspective on what a point of Paintshed was.The question is do you know the point of Auran more recently releasing the Paintshed mesh-only assets for public use?
Your commenting on the objective of Paintshed against a discussion of the post-Paintshed environment. As of TS12 CCP, aliasing is no longer permitted, and therefore is not relevant to PEVs repairs. Also, aliased meshes are not guaranteed to work according to TS12 validation output commentary. I notice you don't have TS12, so maybe you are not up date. Auran released mesh-only assets, analogous to Paintshed meshes, specifically so they may be substituted for aliased meshes and promote repair of now faulty assets according to TS12 standards. Please familiarize yourself with the history and current status before commenting.
Yes,by using the alias function that is anecessary part of the Paintshed process. The user has not been authorised to copy the mesh.
This statement is not only false, it is absurd:
1. Why would Auran release mesh-only assets on the DLS if they could not be used (copied) by the community? These are of no use as supplied, they lack paint schemes. Thecommunity was authorized by virtue of being provisioned by Auran.
2. The absence of licensing limitations on these assets does not restrict their use, so copying is permitted. The way things work are "acts are permitted unless otherwise restricted." It is not the case that no act can be performed unless specifically authorized.
3. Finally, the DLS Cleanup license authorizes modifications, by the claimant, to the extent necessary to make a repair. Have you read this authorization before making this comment?
Thealias function is provided to avoid the need to copy the mesh, not to authorise it.
Preposterous - The alias tag is NOT provisioned, and is discontinued. The alias functionality may only persist for backwards compatibility, and is not guaranteed to work in TS12.
Whether it is the same or a different licensing authority is not relevant.
"Not." If a party makes two licensing statements, the are legally accountable for both of them. If two separate parties may statements, one party is not accountable forboth statements. Its very relevant.
No.The use of an alias to use the external item was authorized. There was no authorization to substitute anything.
Please read the DLS Cleanup license extended to the claimant before commenting. There is no restriction on what methods may be used to afford a repair, there is only restriction on the extent of changes.
I think you are still not reading it correctly. The restriction applies to a mesh that has not been substantially modified.In other words. if you take the mesh and make significant changes (for instance, enough changes so that it is no longer recognisable as an Auran mesh)then it is OK to upload it. But if you don't make significant changes or it is a straight copy with no new original content, then uploading is not permitted.This is a very standard copyright restriction - it acknowledges that you cannot be prevented from using existing material as a source of ideas or as a starting point, but you have to make a significant contribution of new work, or we will consider it an infringing copy.
You have made a good point here, and yes I did read it incorrectly. Thank you for pointing that out.
I am wondering if the claimant could be said to have significantly modified the 3D mesh if they converted it from pm to im. In a sense they have significantly reduced the file size. We know "substantially" is a debatable adverb. Also, the way the sentence reads, either the mesh or texture must be significantly modified, both are not required to be.
Nevertheless, the authorization wording does appear outdated and contrary the DLS Clean up initiative. The only other thing I can think of is the context of the upload page is headed with "Your Content," and the DLS Cleanup license is firm that the repair is in no way considered your content. But since a DLS Cleanup upload sends you to the regular upload page, there should be some accounting for DLS Cleanup if they are asking you to make a truthful certification on the standard upload page.
Please note that I am not suggesting that N3V actually meant to do what they have actually done by including that restriction, and in particular that they intended it to apply to Paintshed reskins. I have no idea what they intended. I only know what they have done.
When the original Paintshed asset upload contained an alias and no mesh, this certification was true. I believe it is an oversight that they have not augmented it for the DLS Cleanup station. I am thinking to right a ticket on it.