blindsaypatten wrote:Are you saying that if I provide the source code to any modifications that I make then the models I produce become CC0?
No, I'm saying you fulfill your obligations for AGPL that way.
blindsaypatten wrote:The way I read the license materials was that the models themselves, if they don't get the CC0 exception, are AGPL and that if you use them in another program you have to make that program AGPL. If I've got that wrong, what is the implication of the exported model not being CC0? You seem to be saying that it could require the publishing of data that is combined with it (e.g. a blend file) rather than the code.
You're reading it correctly. If you don't have the CC0 exception, the exported models are AGPL. Just making one distinction here: You don't turn blender into agpl by using an agpl model in it. However, if you for example build a game that relies on an agpl model, then yes, that would force the game license into agpl. And if a blend file contains an AGPL asset, I'd say the blend file as a whole falls under AGPL.
A blend file can be counted as partial source here, although the classification is somewhat philosophical, since it's a binary format. I'd say that if you publish a) the blend file, b) a link to MH and c) a link to your modifications, you have fulfilled any obligation that an AGPL'd asset would put on you in the case of using the model in blender.
blindsaypatten wrote:I think that the desired result is a license on the target data assets included in MH that only allows them to be used by programs that are open source.
Yes, hence *GPL.
blindsaypatten wrote: I don't see a way to have copies of the mesh or image assets that are in the public domain (released by CC0 which is not itself a license but a declaration that the asset is being placed in the public domain) but claim that the identical assets produced by other means (e.g. modified MH) have restrictions on their use.
You have to take into account that what is licensed is a specific copy. If you have gotten a CC0 licensed copy, you are obviously free to spread that further. If you have gotten an AGPL licensed copy, you have to abide by AGPL when spreading it further. These are different copies
even if they are identical per se.
blindsaypatten wrote:It seems to me that the potentially realizable aim is to protect the targets, which are not included in the exports and therefore have never been released under CC0.
Let me acknowledge that others have thought about these issues in more depth that I have and I may be misunderstanding things, but I did make a reasonable effort to research the points I made.
Trust me when I say that the heated bordering on flame war discussion concerning the license that lead to the current solution did not lack an in-depth discussion. The problem is that no matter what license setup one chooses, there are always fringe cases where it becomes cumbersome for someone, or leaves too little protection for the base material.
This said, it is no secret that I was advocating for a less strict license back then, nor that I think there are unfortunate side effects of the current license setup. However, there are reasons for why
changing the license is tricky and not something that can be done lightly, even disregarding the problem with deciding what to change it
to. Combined with the memory of the quarrel that lead to the last license change, this has made the dev team very hesitant to touch the license at all.