SPORBUST's Locos

All this argument is a waste of time.

One would assume if N3V did not want paintshed assets to be updated they would NOT has included them the DLS repair scheme. It would be simple enough for N3V to filter them out.

I think it's time all you bush lawyers went back to bed to dream up some other copyright issue to argue about.

Mods, please lock this thread..

You don't have to copy the mesh in order to update the paintshed reskins - they can be updated quite adequately by retaining the alias. Most of them have been done this way. So N3V including these assets in the cleanup cannot be taken as approval to copy and upload the meshes.

It's not a trivial issue. The implication of the position you are supporting is that as soon as a mesh is referenced as an alias then it is available to be copied and included in a DLS upload. I think many originators would object to that interpretation. N3V needs to identify Paintshed Reskins of Auran assets as a special case.
 
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.
 
You don't have to copy the mesh in order to update the paintshed reskins - they can be updated quite adequately by retaining the alias. Most of them have been done this way. So N3V including these assets in the cleanup cannot be taken as approval to copy and upload the meshes.

I notice you don't have TS12, and may not be aware of the current validation standards. CCP in TS12 will not accept aliasing. Furthermore, it is necessary to convert pm to im to be ensured the asset will work, as all pm mesh assets come with TS12 validation warnings, and therefore are not considered as valid repairs.

It's not a trivial issue. The implication of the position you are supporting is that as soon as a mesh is referenced as an alias then it is available to be copied and included in a DLS upload. I think many originators would object to that interpretation.

The mesh originator is Auran/N3V, and they are not objecting, they are accepting his repairs. You have generalized way beyond what he did (PEV) , that is not his position.

N3V needs to identify Paintshed Reskins of Auran assets as a special case.

Its quite the opposite. Using the freely licensed and distributed Auran Paintshed meshes is the general case.

The only fix needed is on the standard upload page certification that the DLS Cleanup happens to utilize.
 
Be careful when altering alias settings with Auran/N3V assets.

From memory, N3V have said that any assets that are based on built-in content must alias the mesh and not include the mesh in the asset that has the alias tag in the config file. I believe it's WindWalkr that stated this.

I would strongly suggest that anyone else who wants to do that check with N3V first. It may be for the DLS Cleanup process, but this doesn't necessarily mean that other rules have changed or been lifted.

Shane
 
Last edited:
Be careful when altering alias settings with Auran/N3V assets.

From memory, N3V have said that any assets that are based on built-in content must alias the mesh and not include the mesh in the asset that has the alias tag in the config file. I believe it's WindWalkr that stated this.

I would strongly suggest that anyone else who wants to do that check with N3V first. It may be for the DLS Cleanup process, but this doesn't necessarily mean that other rules have changed or been lifted.

Shane

I believe you are speaking of referencing mesh libraries that are built-in content. These use a special form of an alias tag called "mesh-asset." In this case it would be prohibited to independently extract and incorporate entities that were within that built-in mesh library.

The original Alias tag itself is in fact not allowed for the validation reasons I've stated below.

In this case, PEV used a freely licensed Auran mesh, distributed to the masses, for the purpose of DLS Cleanup. So it is an Auran/N3V mesh authorized to be repaired by Auran/N3V.

If you are referring to the released Auran/N3V Paintshed mesh-only assets, such as kuid -13.133 et al..., then we have a big conflict between the software's validation process and what was "said."
 
That's why I said that things need to be checked with N3V before anyone falls foul of the rules. The main issue is relating to both the alias and the mesh-asset tags.

Shane
 
That's why I said that things need to be checked with N3V before anyone falls foul of the rules. The main issue is relating to both the alias and the mesh-asset tags.

Shane

I know what you advised, but have you carried that advice through to how it pertains to the "alias" tag for DLS Cleanup repairs? It turns out the validation process gives us a fixed path, indifferent to the rules, for the outcome of a repaired alias tag:

One can no longer repair with the alias tag because it at least generates a warning in TS12 CM. CCP will not even entertain alias. An asset with a warning is not considered repaired, and unworthy to be uploaded as a repair. To remove that warning, a mesh must be supplied in the aliased asset. Therefore, a repair of an alias tag in the DLS Cleanup effort is forced to supply a mesh where there was none before in that asset's components. The DLS Cleanup license does not prohibit the methods used to make a repair, only controls the extent of modification. The minimum modification needed to repair the asset is authorized to the claimant. If that requires a mesh to be added, as a minimum, to avoid an alias tag, so be it. Of course the alias tag is removed during the repair.

If this is in the scope of what you advised checking for, it has a "fait de complete" already.
 
Last edited:
I know it gives a warning, but omitting it may cause other issues. I know certain creators on here do not like users including meshes from their assets in other creations, including repairs. This may be the case with N3V/Auran assets as well. It's a case of proceed with extreme caution unless N3V confirm otherwise.

Shane
 
I know it gives a warning, but omitting it may cause other issues. I know certain creators on here do not like users including meshes from their assets in other creations, including repairs.

All uploads must comply with the mesh author's licensing requirements, even for DLS Repair, the up-loader must certify that.

This may be the case with N3V/Auran assets as well. It's a case of proceed with extreme caution unless N3V confirm otherwise. Shane

Of course it would be, but the freely distributed blank-licensing Paintshed meshes, as PEV was discussing in post 13, are not included in this set, and could not create any harm.

It would make no sense to release single mesh-only assets, such as Auran did, unless the authors intent was for others to use those meshes in their assets.
 
That's exactly what they did, but they made it a requirement that the meshes were aliased using the alias or mesh-asset tags and not used directly in another asset. This means that the asset becomes a dependency of the asset that has the alias tag.

Shane
 
That's exactly what they did, but they made it a requirement that the meshes were aliased using the alias or mesh-asset tags and not used directly in another asset. This means that the asset becomes a dependency of the asset that has the alias tag. Shane

No argument with the mesh-asset tags and authors that have used the alias tag in the past, the cautions of course apply, those may be licensed meshes.

The subject of the discussion in this thread since post 13 was repair of DLS Cleanup content, having alias tags, repair by a third party, and the release of Auran's single mesh-only Paintshed assets. For the reasons I've explained, the cautions cannot apply to the aliased faulties on the DLS Cleanup.
 
I notice you don't have TS12, and may not be aware of the current validation standards. CCP in TS12 will not accept aliasing. Furthermore, it is necessary to convert pm to im to be ensured the asset will work, as all pm mesh assets come with TS12 validation warnings, and therefore are not considered as valid repairs.

Wow a real barrack room lawyer, my little laptop and I don't care about warnings on repaired DLS items, they just work, so thank you world for repairing them.

Luv Karen
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by deneban
I notice you don't have TS12, and may not be aware of the current validation standards. CCP in TS12 will not accept aliasing. Furthermore, it is necessary to convert pm to im to be ensured the asset will work, as all pm mesh assets come with TS12 validation warnings, and therefore are not considered as valid repairs.

Wow a real barrack room lawyer, my little laptop and I don't care about warnings on repaired DLS items, they just work, so thank world for repairing them.

Luv Karen

The point was there should not be warnings on repaired DLS cleanup items. If your getting a warning, that asset likely not been repaired by that effort. Also there is no lawyer (legalistic) lingo in that statement that should draw such an analogy.
 
Last edited:
That raises another question as to whether removing an alias/mesh-asset tag (i.e. copying the mesh from the aliased asset) is seen as a fundamental change beyond what is required for the repair, bearing in mind that N3V's stance on warnings from what I've seen is to ignore them.

Shane
 
That raises another question as to whether removing an alias/mesh-asset tag (i.e. copying the mesh from the aliased asset) is seen as a fundamental change beyond what is required for the repair,

See the criterion is right there in front of us as you recited it. If under the target game version it was necessary to remove an alias statement to make the repair, then that is acceptable (an example being TS12 version 3.6 and removing an alias tag). Alternatively, for example somebody copied a mesh from a mesh library into their asset as a component, but the asset could have merely referenced the mesh library to accomplish the repair, then no, that is not acceptable.

bearing in mind that N3V's stance on warnings from what I've seen is to ignore them. Shane

So you have downloaded repairs that retain warnings in their intended game version? I can't see a repair rejection because the repairer could have got by with warnings and less modifications. The repairs necessary would naturally be those needed to clear all warnings, but I guess actual practice may differ.
 
The point was there should not be warnings on repaired DLS cleanup items. If your getting a warning, that asset likely not been repaired by that effort. Also there is no lawyer (legalistic) lingo in that statement that should draw such an analogy.

So "and therefore are not considered as valid repairs" is just an opinion, the upload process, my laptop and I have a different one, they work.

Luv Karen
 
The repair process is to allow the content to work in the target version. As long as the DLS upload process accepts the upload (even with warnings) and there are no errors, then it may be seen as repaired.

Shane
 
The repair process is to allow the content to work in the target version. As long as the DLS upload process accepts the upload (even with warnings) and there are no errors, then it may be seen as repaired.

Shane

But the degree of modification can be extended to remove all warnings and still meet the minimum repair criterion.

Is there an example of an aliased mesh asset repair with an alias tag producing a warning in TS12 CM?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top