PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: sekhmet on July 09, 2003, 08:50:07 pm
-
Hello,
I\'m new around Planeshift and I would like to add to the magnificent
work of the planeshift team. You have done a very good job so far and
I was actually pretty amazed by Planeshift. This project has an incredible potentiel. I\'ve been playing muds for years and did some zone development their and was maybe thinking of doing the same for Planeshift. But I see one big hold back for me, and that is stated in your \"Joint-Copyright PlaneShift License\":
3) The author cannot use the same material in any other MMORPG Projects. A MMORPG project is defined as a project working to create a computer game involving one or more servers where multiple players connect and interact with each other and with the \"world\" provided by the server(s).
Personally I believe that Planeshift wil be the mother of a new generation of muds, and I think Planeshift needs to incorperate a part of it\'s artwork with the game so that other people can set up their own mud or watever with the planeshift base, I\'m not telling you to give away all the artwork you got but some standard stuff, a couple of houses, some basic items etc. Maybe their could be a seperate project for this in which future spinoffs from Planeshift, people and other projects can work together to make a common public 3D models library for the purpose of rpg\'s.
Wat it comes down to is that I\'d love to create some artwork for you but I\'d prefer it\'d be for everyone as in the GPL spirit.
Sekhmet
-
\"and other projects can work together to make a common public 3D models library for the purpose of rpg\'s.\"
Say what??!! That\'s a terrible ide? ;)
Models\\textures should be individual for all games otherwise games will lose there artistic values,, all games shouldn\'t\\doesn\'t have the same style you know..
And even I a lot of projects would gather up and make a huge model libary they would get old very soon when the poly count raises again.
Muds? What does that have to do with Planeshift?? Planeshift got rid of the mud in year 2001!
-
Seems to mee that everybody has about the same idea on how a dwarf or an elf might look. And once you got a base model it\'s a lot easier to change adapt it to your personal flavor and I\'m pretty sure most people will want to change the models and textures but then at least they have a base to start from. I think a cup and a wooden bench look pretty much the same everywhere don\'t they?
And I\'m not pretty sure on how to upgrade older models but I suppose it is a lot easier than starting from scratch?
I\'ve noticed in a forum here on the boards \"Mogura\'s guide to client custamation\" that a lot of users have already been making changes to their own textures and stuff, why not make use of resources like that.
And as of wat I gathered Planeshift will be pretty much a mud with a nice gui, but I\'m not saying it is only that, it\'s much much more.
-
My 2 cents...
actually creating something original is a lot harder when starting from something someone else did. So the chances that a product deriving from PS will look like an imitations are fairly high, in the case we\'d provide some material that everybody can modify for their purposes. My opinion is that the ones who can come up with really interesting ideas usually have the means and the skill to develop them indipendently, but I could be biased on this.
-
Hiya. :)
The difference here is that you basically want permission to take art or models that the Planeshift team were hard at work for months creating, alter it a little, and produce your own project using these models which, in reality, display nothing of your actual skill.
My guide to cusomisation explains how to add one\'s own artwork to the game to personalise the experience. I think it\'s unfair to take work from skilled 3D artists and claim it as your own after a few minor alterations to the model and/or skin. Seems the Planeshift Team does too... which is why the Copyright License exists.
[Edit: Mod got here first. Dam you for making me post in your more-important shadow! :P]
-
At least the art designer contributor should have the right to use his own art work he allowed Planeshift to be used to be used for his own or other projects, this is not the case if I read the Planeshift license correct. I\'d like to be able to use at least wat I myself designed to be used on my own or other projects on my own discretion. Can this be done? Someone from Planeshift core plz respond on this.
-
...Are you saying you want to use your own artwork in the Planeshift game, use your own artwork in your own game, or use Planeshift artwork/modified Planeshift artwork in your own game?
The first two are fine. The last is simply plagerism.
-
Originally posted by sekhmet
At least the art designer contributor should have the right to use his own art work he allowed Planeshift to be used to be used for his own or other projects, this is not the case if I read the Planeshift license correct. I\'d like to be able to use at least wat I myself designed to be used on my own or other projects on my own discretion. Can this be done? Someone from Planeshift core plz respond on this.
I don\'t think models\\textures should be used in more than one game..
The game and maybe the portfulieo (misspelled I know)..
-
sekhmet wrote:
I\'d like to be able to use at least wat I myself designed to be used on my own or other projects on my own discretion
If you want to use your own art in your own project then don\'t submit it to become part of the Planeshift project.
Simple really ;)
-
Let\'s look at it starting from a different perspective. We know that intellectual property slows progress, as even the GNU GPL that Planeshift has says. If something is fundamentally wrong, then logically it must also be practically wrong. When copyrights were the only way software worked, nobody believed that public domain-style software would ever work, because they didn\'t see the incentive. Linux proved that it\'s truly better to be fundamentally right, and even Red Hat made a lot of money on it. Even the giant Microsoft is tumbling.
Sekhmet is surely right that many portions are practically identical from one game to another. Try the texture of a brick, or the shape of a sword, for example. I could claim that PS doesn\'t have its own look and feel, because the other CS based games feel the same.
Movies do the same thing. They just shuffle actors around and change their clothes. \"I don\'t wanna see T3, \'cause they just used the actor from Hercules in New York and changed his clothes.\"
Game developers that want to be original simply don\'t copy stuff unless they can satisfactorily change it to something new. And those who don\'t change the graphics simply don\'t want to. That\'s flattery. :]
On the other hand, Planeshift does make a good point about artists refusing to submit their work as GPL. There is a solution, though. PS can keep all the contracts and licenses the same, but piece by piece, they can accept public domain replacements, now that they have popularity on their side. I would donate public domain art if I could draw better than a 5 year old child drawing with his left foot.
On a related note, yes, Planeshift can be a profitable GPL product by operating advertisement-driven \"value-added servers\".
-
A lot of advanced muds started off with a standard CircleMUD, with standard zones, standard code and evolved into something completely different. These people were young and unexperienced programmers that changed little by little their world and system and along the way got lots better at programming. Their creatons still thrive on untill today, because they are original. The muds with little modifcation dyed out, becuz of lack and intrest by players. But all these great muds started of from a clone world, the base package. Remember Midgaard from circlemud? I can offcourse understand that Planeshift wants to make sure that their are no split offs from the project.(diffusion of resources) But once Planeshift has gone gold they should release it on the world and have some standard zones to go along with it for starters. This could even be a completely different set of zones from the Planeshift world. And why not make a public project of this base world then? I also liked to add that I\'d be good for Planeshift to have a lot of splitoffs (once it has gone gold) since it is under the GPL license and will be able to get a lot of help from admins running their own little game server and fixing stuff, but I can Imagen it to be pretty hard to set up a base server if you would have to create all the artwork from scratch, it\'d take you months if not years before you have anything to show. But all of this discussion is based on muds, let me give this a spin. In Neverwinter nights you can be a dungeon master and lead your friends into quests. Planeshift could also be this, but how are you gonna do this if you don\'t have any 3D models?
Reply to Mogura: I would like to give art work I myself created to Planeshift but also later on to be able to split off from Planeshift and set up my own mud of some sort based on the Planeshift(engine) and my own art work. But the Planeshift prohibits this. I\'d also agree to go under the Planeshift license if I was sure that Planeshift would allow me to use my own art work on my own mud once it has gone gold. Wat\'s so wierd about that?
-
Since this isn\'t a MUD, and much, much more complicated than those, it would take a lot of the devs\' time away from PS if they were to create extra extra zones for people wanting to create their own game.. Since the devs main project is PS and since PS is ever evolving, I would rather see them use their time at developing PS instead of \"wasting\" their time working on zones that \"I\" personally, as well as a lot of others, won\'t ever get to use, or want to use... but those are just my two cents...
-
Tools for MUDs like preprogrammed codes and stuff are for newbie programers like you said and if one are a newbie programmers they shouldn\'t try something as hard as 3d MMORPG.
-
Originally posted by Xalthar
Since this isn\'t a MUD, and much, much more complicated than those, it would take a lot of the devs\' time away from PS if they were to create extra extra zones for people wanting to create their own game.. Since the devs main project is PS and since PS is ever evolving, I would rather see them use their time at developing PS instead of \"wasting\" their time working on zones that \"I\" personally, as well as a lot of others, won\'t ever get to use, or want to use... but those are just my two cents...
if some developer wants to make something like PS, he\'ll obviously want to make something unique. his interests probably wouldn\'t jive with the Planeshift mission. therefore, the developer would not be a PS dev under any circumstances.
I don\'t think sekhmet (or I) would like PS to present the source code on a silver platter, just give us permission to dissect the platter we already have. more specifically, sekhmet would like to donate to the PS project, but he (as I) would not like his own work to be restricted into PS.
Originally posted by Niber
Tools for MUDs like preprogrammed codes and stuff are for newbie programers like you said and if one are a newbie programmers they shouldn\'t try something as hard as 3d MMORPG.
look at it this way. if a 3D MMORPG\'s graphics, sound, and code were all public domain, then a newbie programmer would have a much quicker start. as sekhmet said, those who stick to it and make a truly original game are going to succeed. those who are in over their head will not make an original game and it won\'t gather interest; they\'ll end up having older data, less support, and more bugs.
-
I don\'t think sekhmet (or I) would like PS to present the source code on a silver platter
Given the fact that this game is open source, the code is freely downloadable, useable and modifiable from everyone. And, believe me, this means that an incredible amount of work is already saved for those who want to use it to create their own game.
look at it this way. if a 3D MMORPG\'s graphics, sound, and code were all public domain, then a newbie programmer would have a much quicker start
If all these things were all available, the only thing this newbie programmer would have to do would be changing some names and things around and voila: he would get a PS clone. Results? All the originality we tried to put into our game is spoiled by these cheap clones: definitely not the best way to mantain ourselves and our community focused and happy with our game.
And, to clarify, all the artists that are working on PS accepted the PS license, understood and appreciate it, since it grants that their artwork will be protected and used only for the purpose it was created for.
-
I think you have to look at two different things.
The code and the Artwork.
A opensource game which is the base of other games (in best case originall improvements in worst case clones) is fine. Like you said it\'s easier to start for a newbie (though I think making a game can be hardly done by \"newbies\").
After all it\'s similar to using a engine, you have a base code and modify it to create something new.
Art is something different IMO. Not only that graphics like textures models etc make most of the impression of a game (not taking gameplay into account), Art is what makes the game.
Just imagine 10 different engines or games with the same levels, models textures! That is not only boring but it\'s almost the same game(-look).
So copying models for other games should be avoided. Art makes the game unique. Just count all 3d-rpgs with dwarfs and imagine they all looked the same. Where would the creative Art be in this \"Gameart\"?
Even modifing won\'t help. Art is something personal and should be done like this. Imagine taking a portrait painting, paint another face on the body because you only can draw faces....That\'s so lame ;)
Maybe as an programer \"you\" (not pointing at somebody) want to make sure that you got models for your great programing but instead of stealing look for a good 3d-artist.
That\'s my opinion as a (wanna-B) 3d-Artist ;)
-
I read trough the license but I\'m not sure everyone did, seeing from some brainless responses. So I know it\'s devided in 3 licenses. And I know the engine is GPL and I do agree 100% completely that you protect your artwork, god knows I would if I was in your circumstances. But the contributors could maybe get a choise of a 4th license that allows 3D art in the gpl spirit. I could even manage it if you wanted so you don\'t get to much extra work. I could start working on an extra town or plane that\'s based on this GPL artwork that could give people an idea how to get started on creating zones for a the Planeshift engine. All this stuff needs to be documented too, and it\'s also imperative to add a good documented online tutorial to this. Think in the long run people, if PS kicks off it could be around for years and years to come. Stuff like this would attract more developers for sure.
I have talked with some friends of mine who are excellent coders(not those brainless Visual Basic peeps but the real kind) and they started of learning a lot of programming skills by working on a mud they coded on. They had a standard CircleMud with standard zones that they gradually changed and now you woudn\'t even recognize the place anymore, this is because they attracted good zone writers becuz they were good coders. These people are Senior Unix sys admins in a really big IT company. They are very much intrested in joining the PS team as coders and they could really do a lot for PS, but they would do this to later on when the code is mature to set up our own \"mud\". (code changes to PS spin-offs are public since they are GPL) They don\'t want to spend their valuable time designing a whole complete new world from scratch to get their server going online so that people could enjoy the features they added to the code. A good engine attracts zone developers. That\'s where people like I walk in, I have the time to design a zone but not a whole world on my own. And if I had some base models, basic bodyforms etc it would make the proces a lot faster I think. But maybe I should just start my own sourceforge project with the intension of creating freely usable 3D art, zones and documentation. But if this was done with approvel from PS and maybe an extra guiding hand of the PS team it would certenly help.
And finaly do you really belive that some idiot that just changed some names from the planeshift world would have much succes attracting people while people can play on the real PS server where their are tons of people? I really think not. And I really do agree that you keep part of your artwork under license 2 this should never change and it\'s a good model for future spin-offs, this protects your original work. But I\'m sure that some spin-offs might like to contribute one of their zones to the world community. I think theirs no greater praise for the developer if he sees that his zone is much used, it means it\'s good. This fact has already happend in the mud world, some zones were made public, some muds dyed out and they decided to release their zones publicly. Focus stuff like this.
I refuse to work under license 3 so if their can be no kind of compromise I\'m not intrested in joining the PS dev team and I am sure some people will agree with me, I\'m even sure of it just look at Kluger his response above.
-
seeing from some brainless responses.
Namecalling doesn\'t help make your point. :-)
If all these things were all available, the only thing this newbie programmer would have to do would be changing some names and things around and voila: he would get a PS clone. Results? All the originality we tried to put into our game is spoiled by these cheap clones: definitely not the best way to mantain ourselves and our community focused and happy with our game.
Your\'re not listening to me.
The fundamental is all that matters. Fundamentally, graphics and code are the same. Fundamentally, copyrights and patents are immoral and illogical. (Read the GNU GPL.) There are many projects that make their art freely available, and they\'re not suffering creative dilution.
The thing that makes Linux so great is that there are just heaps and mounts and piles of code, graphics, sound, and even thousands of games. When one distribution borrows another entire distribution and just changes the name, people avoid it. They know Red Hat, but who\'s this J.A.M.D.? They don\'t wanna trust their systems to an unknown when they can get Red Hat for free. But, J.A.M.D. has different software, no GNOME, a proper KDE, new games and software, and a better CD burning package. It\'s true that they keep the basic packages like OpenOffice.org and Mozilla, but that\'s simply because they\'re good software. Now, J.A.M.D. has a lot to offer, and they\'re not diluting Red Hat Linux or the Red Hat team. They\'re in fact promoting Red Hat! (Keep in mind that Red Hat can take hints from J.A.M.D., too.)
We shouldn\'t flatter ourselves. The art in PS is not so amazingly good that no other project\'s art comes close. The truth is that game developers, even newbies, would just pick and choose from among literally tens of thousands of software titles and make something original. Even so, what makes Planeshift so popular is not its uniqueness. Heck, my poop is unique every time. Planeshift\'s strength is in its overall package. You have a large development team actively improving the game, maintained servers, support team, support website, and, I\'m pleased to say, a wonderful group of players.
Many people have original concepts, but they can\'t draw worth crap...so they hire the artists who worked on Planeshift. Whaddayaknow! The art\'s gonna be similar! Even the greatest artist in history, when making \"new\" art, use the same technique they used in their past art.
Look at 3D Studio Max (I think that\'s the program..or maybe it\'s Maya) where it has the ability to create models with just a few characteristics. Two people entering the same characteristics will come up the the same models. But movie makers use this software all the time. It\'s the same as taking an old model and changing it around a little. Here\'s another truth. Many of the models are based on real world objects. Should artists have to base their own art on other objects?
Imagine hypothetically that there are truckloads of free graphics and people keep adding their own art. The overall pool of art will continue to improve! Art will evolve better and better, which is something that hasn\'t happened throughout history! And old styles of art will not have been lost. Think of it as a good Borg... Or, you can think of it as breeding cats, but that mights bring up totally different topics on a Planeshift forum. :-? (I like this tongue much better. Perhaps the admins could add it to the list of smilies...\'course it doesn\'t show up right in CJK enabled browsers.)
It\'s true that less artist names will be known, but think of it this way. How many modern artists can you think of now? Artists would lose a little fame, but the art you see in games will actually be more original. With a wider base, there will be less repetition.
And, to clarify, all the artists that are working on PS accepted the PS license, understood and appreciate it, since it grants that their artwork will be protected and used only for the purpose it was created for.
Right. I\'m like Benjamin Netanyaho. If I made an agreement, no matter how stupid, I\'ll stick to it. The artists don\'t need to be ripped off. However, what I recommend is that they extend the current license. Maintain the license they have with their artists, but make it possible to submit GPL art. (Also, of course, make it possible for artists to change their art to GPL if they like.) This would please ppl like Sekhmet, because he can donate his own art, and this would please ppl like me, because over time, good GPL art can replace the current copyrighted art.
I don\'t wanna make anyone feel like chopped liver, but are any administrators listening in on this thread? I mean, we can argue about the fundamentals all day, but even if we all end up agreeing, the PS team makes the final decision.
And Milho, don\'t feel like chopped liver because I didn\'t quote U. :-? (yup, that\'s a different tongue there) It\'s just that it was easier to quote boonet...
-
I feel concerned, after all I\'ve got graphics in PS.
You know I\'ve been in a project where graphics were GPL too. You don\'t know how horrible it is to see a newb take the work of 15hours, change 3-5 things on it and says: it\'s much better like this. You end up with a totally different feeling, but you recognize this work.
Look at 3D Studio Max (I think that\'s the program..or maybe it\'s Maya) where it has the ability to create models with just a few characteristics. Two people entering the same characteristics will come up the the same models. But movie makers use this software all the time. It\'s the same as taking an old model and changing it around a little. Here\'s another truth. Many of the models are based on real world objects. Should artists have to base their own art on other objects?
Create model with just a few characteristics? Not any modeler can do that (you probably mean Poser, but I don\'t call that a modeler soft and noone use that for a game.) Same in cinema, not that kind of software.
I\'m sorry but I think it\'s stupid to say you can base your art on something else than reality (what is an object not based on real world?).
All art are based on real feeling, objects, environement etc... or you\'re not human ;)
Sekhmet: don\'t you think what you say is simply spreading the whole effort we put in PS. You know, some days I\'m working 10 hours on PS models to contribute to it and bring it to life like other PS devs. Now you want to come and start something else in parallel. Even if it\'s PS related it\'s not PS, you could be far more useful at helping now the team.
You just want to come at a time where everything will be done. No, it\'s too easy. Come now, help us.
I\'m not sure if you understand that the only motivation we have is this community, we work for players, because every time I see someone happy of PS, I just retake my modeling software and keep working.
And now, you think we\'ll like to spread our graphics? You just see 2 posts from the Lead artist of PS and you don\'t know who is he... He made most of the city you\'re playing in. So you see, it\'s easy to get lost.
Anyway, PS license is like that...
-
The fundamental is all that matters. Fundamentally, graphics and code are the same.
This sounds a pretty naive idea.
Fundamentally, copyrights and patents are immoral and illogical.
ROFL
Look at 3D Studio Max (I think that\'s the program..or maybe it\'s Maya) where it has the ability to create models with just a few characteristics. Two people entering the same characteristics will come up the the same models. But movie makers use this software all the time. It\'s the same as taking an old model and changing it around a little. Here\'s another truth. Many of the models are based on real world objects. Should artists have to base their own art on other objects?
LOL sorry, but... do you have idea of what you are saying? This is just pointless.
I don\'t wanna make anyone feel like chopped liver, but are any administrators listening in on this thread? I mean, we can argue about the fundamentals all day, but even if we all end up agreeing, the PS team makes the final decision.
Ahem... I am the graphics department leader of Planeshift.
-
From what I understand, part of the reason why Planeshift wants to maintain control over the artwork is to prevent other teams from branching Planeshift. When reading their objectives carefully (a few months back), I noticed that their main concern is that Planeshift remains the central Open Source 3D MMORPG for the forseeable future although it is not explicitly stated.
The reasons why they seem to want to prevent against competing branches is mostly because in this particular scenario, combining resources would bring about greater success than teams branching out and doing their own thing. An MMORPG is no small feat, and for it to be accomplished requires a large team of dedicated developers working together and not against each other.
There have been several high profile open source projects that have met with difficulties due to branching - The most noteworthy one recently would be the JBoss group. Of course, you might think that situations such as these are the exception rather than the norm, and quote all the thousands of open source projects that exist, many of which are good projects in their own right even in the light of branches (1 example might be the no. of distros of Linux)
Unfortunately as much as there is choice in the terms of software used, a consolidated effort may in fact be a better option, and in this case perhaps it is a fundamental decision to ensure that Planeshift remains at the centre of Open Source development for MMORPGs. There are of course pros and cons, but I think the team believed (I\'m not one of them so I can\'t say for sure) that offshoots of Planeshift will lower the chances of success against the big guys.
The licences involved include the GPL and the Planeshift licences, so I think that a good balance has been struck so as to encourage the growth of the server and client cores at least. Artwork is a touchy issue, and I think the copyrights approach works here because it is perhaps more sensitive and has some visual impact.
Seeing your source code in someone else\'s game does not have as much an impact as if you were to see your player model there instead. Programmers might disagree here of course but visually, the public, everybody, knows that the model has been copied. The licence for artwork presents a 2-way protection where artists are ensured that their work is not used anywhere else and Planeshift as a whole is protected from unfettered use of their artwork on other engines.
It might seem stifling as it appears to be an attempt to prevent competition from other open source groups, but I think should good GPLed artwork exist then the Planeshift team may consider a GPLed art section as well, perhaps as tools and resources for a mod if things turn out right eventually.
As a 3D MMORPG though, the artwork is what makes Planeshift unique, hence it has the greatest impact on players and needs to be protected the most. Perhaps this reason alone is sufficient to argue for why artwork should be used for Planeshift only. A rouge artist could very well give away *all* his models and dilute the Planeshift experience significantly, ruining the project entirely.
Also, sharing source code is different from sharing artwork. Programs are fundamentally improvements or rewrites of older ones, hence sharing source code is *good* for the community because programs get better. The same can\'t be said about artwork, since sharing your artwork and allowing it to be *used* by others is not beneficial to anybody (except the dolt who stole it) and doesn\'t improve the world of art a single bit.
-
You\'re still not listening to me. (Djaggernaut, I mean.) I\'m talking about the current art staying in the hands of the artists. I\'m not talking about taking your hours of work and cannibalizing it.
However, some people would like to donate their own original work under GPL. When you have ten people each spending ten hours and each making one drawing, you end up with ten distinct art forms. But if you have ten people each spending one hour per drawing and working on ten drawings, you have a much richer art in each drawing. Of course, that has always been difficult to do on canvas, but on the computer it can come naturally.
I can\'t draw anything well, but I can come up with pretty geometric designs. If the art were GPL, I could add my geometric designs to a character\'s clothing. And it quite possibly really could be better.
I know what you mean, though. When you\'ve spent hours and hours to perfect something, to get it exactly how you want it, and you don\'t keep it to yourself but show it to everyone else (out of your own kindness), the last thing you want to hear is, \"The nose is all wrong.\"
The ironic truth is that only the very best art is taken and modified. It\'s a form of flattery that is so often misunderstood. If I had a 3D model that looked like a 3 year old child drew it, I would not be interested in, say, fixing the nose or adding pretty fractal designs. I would not consider the art to be up to my level.
It takes a little bit to get used to, but once you do, having people edit your graphics means that they accept it as good quality and are willing to take the time to think about it. (Nobody bases a Linux distribution on a crappy one, they base their distributions on good ones, like Red Hat.)
Nevertheless, Planeshift (and therefore everyone who uses Planeshift) made an agreement with the artists, and I don\'t want to break the agreement. If you want to keep your art, then keep it. We\'re still very honored to see it in Planeshift!
By the way, just out of curiosity, can you point out some of your art? ?_?
-
Re:Fundamentally, graphics and code are the same.
This sounds a pretty naive idea.
Why?
RE:Fundamentally, copyrights and patents are immoral and illogical.
ROFL
Don\'t take my word for it. Get it straight from the gnu\'s mouth. Quotes from gnu.org (of which Planeshift subscribes):
\"Copyright is not a natural right, but an artificial government-imposed monopoly that limits the users\' natural right to copy.\"
\"As ethical beings, we must not favor the infliction of hardship and injustice on others on the grounds that it will drive them to join our cause.\"
\"So the ethical issues of free software, the issues of a user\'s right to copy and modify software, are the same as such questions for other kinds of published information. ... I\'m talking about the rights you should have if you get copies of published things where there\'s no attempt to keep them secret.\"
\"But the context is changing, and that has to change our ethical evaluation of copyright. Now the basic principles of ethics are not changed by advances in technology; they\'re too fundamental to be touched by such contingencies. But our decision about any specific question is a matter of the consequences of the alternatives available, and the consequences of a given choice may change when the context changes. That is what is happening in the area of copyright law because the age of the printing press is coming to an end, giving way gradually to the age of the computer networks. \"
\"The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the law enables him to.\"
\"And therefore copyright didn\'t really take any freedom away from the reading public. There wasn\'t anything that a book purchaser could do that was forbidden by copyright. But this isn\'t true for computer programs. It\'s also not true for tape cassettes.\"
\"Right now we are in a period where the situation that made copyright harmless and acceptable is changing to a situation where copyright will become destructive and intolerable.\"
\"If one can judge copyright to be harmful even on narrow economic terms, disregarding the ethical wrong of stopping people from sharing, it can only be more harmful once we consider the ethics as well.\"
\"The FSF also helps to spread awareness of the ethical and political issues of freedom in the use of software.\"
\"We firmly disagree: software should be free.\"
\"The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts into the natural rights of the public---and that this can only be justified for the public\'s sake. \"
\"Free Software is an ethical movement that establishes the constructive
alternative to corporate globalization\"
While it\'s true that the FSF says you need to copyright your work, they refer to a method they call \"copyleft\": Copyright your product so that nobody else can copyright and steal it from you.
LOL sorry, but... do you have idea of what you are saying? This is just pointless.
sorry, but... yes I do. I used to sell it. (I do, after all, have a nearly 7 yr old computer company, and four of my customers are \"amateur\" film editors.) I think I\'m wrong about the name of the program, though. Now that I think about it, I think it was an Adobe Premier plugin...even though it was just a plugin, it sold for thousands of dollars. In order to sell the package, after the 15 minute tutorial, I made an ant model which walked, ran, sat, waved, jumped, swam, flew, and even negotiated a ladder...in minutes. It was around 30k polys, too. I didn\'t have a template to work from, just what I remember from biology class.
(I can think of one sarcastic response to my own statement: \"If a left-brained guy like yourself can make a realitic 3D model, then why are we slaving for months and years?\" Why indeed. The simple answer is that it would cost about $6,000 per user, but the more complex answer is that the company doesn\'t believe in free software. Besides that, considering how complex you want to get, creative while not bloating with polys, this software isn\'t for you.)
Ahem... I am the graphics department leader of Planeshift.
*looks at name* oh yeah! :P in that case, this is time well spent...
-
Just reading through. A argument for GPL Models seems to be that it gives other projects a start to work with something.
It\'s not that you can\'t access the PS models. I know form Half-Life (cause I was working in a MOD) that it helps alot to take the original models, recompile them edit them and see how people did it. But after all you want to make your own thing. I don\'t no if these pro-GPL people are only coders or modelers but you should know making a model is a hard job but not imposibble. Imagine there are even some people (like the PS Modeling Crew) who are willing to create them. And if you start a project you can probably find people like those too! So why copying the models? That\'s so lame, unoriginal. You can still view the models \"recompile\" them load in your 3d program analyse the mesh whatever but after all do your own thing. It\'s not that hard. So why would I need to \"steal\" the models??
I can understand the crews decision on the art and totally agree.
-
Originally posted by boonet
Look at 3D Studio Max (I think that\'s the program..or maybe it\'s Maya) where it has the ability to create models with just a few characteristics. Two people entering the same characteristics will come up the the same models. But movie makers use this software all the time. It\'s the same as taking an old model and changing it around a little. Here\'s another truth. Many of the models are based on real world objects. Should artists have to base their own art on other objects?
LOL sorry, but... do you have idea of what you are saying? This is just pointless.
Kluger is telling the truth (from a n00bish angle ;)
The app is XSI Softimage (Almost all character modeler for movie use it) but those few clicks are waaay to many polygons for games,,.
-
I don\'t think that\'s the program, but the point is still the same. :-? what really surprised me is how little work is really involved in creating the characters in those new Pixar-ish movies. I mean, just make a model, let it know what are eyes, corners of the mouth, etc., and it can automate speaking, facial expressions, and even movements recorded from a human model...
wow, this forum is way more active than I thought!
-
Niber, sorry, but you\'re totally wrong. Where did you get the idea that a) almost all movie character modelers use XSI b) just a \'few\' clicks are necessary even using that software?
The movie industry uses a very wide toolset, and XSI is only one of the many options. I will not mention the fact that Lightwave, Maya and even the old MAX are all part of the everyday movie business (not to mention some others), and they are all but click-and-play tools that automagically produce models derived from a base set.
Kluger: you don\'t really realize how much work is behind those characters... it\'s not easy and quick as you depict it. Actually, to get to the correct results, teams of many artists all work together for a long time on all the different aspects of a character.
-
Niber, sorry, but you\'re totally wrong. Where did you get the idea that a) almost all movie character modelers use XSI b) just a \'few\' clicks are necessary even using that software?
The movie industry uses a very wide toolset, and XSI is only one of the many options. I will not mention the fact that Lightwave, Maya and even the old MAX are all part of the everyday movie business (not to mention some others), and they are all but click-and-play tools that automagically produce models derived from a base set.
\"Where did you get the idea that ... just a \'few\' clicks are necessary even using that software?\"
\"and they are all but click-and-play tools that automagically produce models derived from a base set.\"
you see the confusion? I\'m saying the same thing. (continued below)
Kluger: you don\'t really realize how much work is behind those characters... it\'s not easy and quick as you depict it. Actually, to get to the correct results, teams of many artists all work together for a long time on all the different aspects of a character.
you don\'t understand me. once they make a sketch, decide the personality, come up with a story and dialog, and determine all the characteristic, the amount of work on the computer is minimal. most of the work during design consists of getting it verified with the lead designer. as soon as they make the character, it takes about as much work to make a one minute ad as it does to make a 6 hour trilogy. look at Beast Wars, for example, and that\'s ooold..
now I\'m not saying that the movie makers are being overpaid. the whole movie production is immense. hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars can be spent on feeding people on set. being an executive producer is an understandably maddening process...
I\'d like to know, though, what is Planeshift\'s position? will you consider accepting GPL/public domain graphics/music, even on a per-item approval basis?
-
Kluger, you are still underestimating the computer work needed for this kind of work, believe me. This is my real life job, so I know how many hours, days and weeks are needed to get some results. I will not dig into the infinite number of steps you are not considering, but believe me: it\'s not such a trivial thing. :)
About accepting GPL/public domain graphics/music, I think this is quite out of discussion: we decided from the beginning that all of PS had to be original work realized for PS and subject to its restrictive artwork license, and we absolutely don\'t think about changing this policy, since we strongly believe in its value.
-
Dear Kluger,
- No, a character in a movie is not made in two clicks. It takes a lot of time since you start with a box and model from it (one of the several techniques).
- No the Softimage is not use for all movies, and No, it doesn\'t able to create a char.
-No it\'s not an Adobe premiere plugin, if you speak about After-effect it\'s for post-production and has nothing to do with 3D.
-No Pixar characters are not the same. If you\'re so good, please make a model, animate it, put it into Planeshift. It tooks hours and hours for them to create a character.
Concerning my graphics, what? it\'s a test? You want to be sure I\'m not a newbie in gfx world?
Sorry I don\'t answer to that, just know it\'s some skinning work and now models I can\'t speak about.
Don\'t be so affirmative when you don\'t know something, please.
Thank you. :D
-
Ok I\'ve just read this thread (with much amusement) and I have a few points to make:
1. The GPL itself uses the power of copyright to enforce its recursive nature on derivative works. Far from the GPL repudiating them, copyright laws are what give the GPL its power.
2. There are really two things under development at once by our team. a) The Planeshift game, which is free from a money perspective but not free to do whatever you want with. b) The Planeshift MMORPG Engine, which is GPL\'d, which means you can do whatever you want with it as long as what you do is also GPL\'d. The purpose of the dual license is to accommodate the dual nature of the development effort and to make sure that what is part of Planeshift the game is truly Planeshift.
3. I don\'t see what is stopping Kluger and sekhmet and other open art advocates from making their own MMORPG using our engine and their own artwork. They can certainly make their own game and GPL all their artwork if that is what they believe in. Go for it guys.
4. Contrary to popular belief, the world does not exist to hand everything over to people on a silver platter and that is not the purpose of the GPL either. In fact it is rare that GPL software splits ever become meaningful. Mostly what happens with GPL\'d code is that it turns into something else or the core product is continuously improved with new changes rolled into it. This would not happen with the artwork, and even the advocates are not saying it would.
5. Even GNU.org doesn\'t recommend GPLing artwork. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#OtherWorks for the reference.
- Vengeance
Server Team Leader
-
Ok I\'ve just read this thread (with much amusement) and I have a few points to make:
1. The GPL itself uses the power of copyright to enforce its recursive nature on derivative works. Far from the GPL repudiating them, copyright laws are what give the GPL its power.
I said that. :-)
2. There are really two things under development at once by our team. a) The Planeshift game, which is free from a money perspective but not free to do whatever you want with. b) The Planeshift MMORPG Engine, which is GPL\'d, which means you can do whatever you want with it as long as what you do is also GPL\'d. The purpose of the dual license is to accommodate the dual nature of the development effort and to make sure that what is part of Planeshift the game is truly Planeshift.
3. I don\'t see what is stopping Kluger and sekhmet and other open art advocates from making their own MMORPG using our engine and their own artwork. They can certainly make their own game and GPL all their artwork if that is what they believe in. Go for it guys.
well, nothing\'s stopping me, but I would really rather see Planeshift benefit from it. I\'ve been testing and immensely enjoying the alpha-test. the reason I don\'t want to make my own game is that I don\'t want to work against Planeshift...
4. Contrary to popular belief, the world does not exist to hand everything over to people on a silver platter and that is not the purpose of the GPL either. In fact it is rare that GPL software splits ever become meaningful. Mostly what happens with GPL\'d code is that it turns into something else or the core product is continuously improved with new changes rolled into it. This would not happen with the artwork, and even the advocates are not saying it would.
5. Even GNU.org doesn\'t recommend GPLing artwork. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#OtherWorks for the reference.
I couldn\'t find what you were referring to. I didn\'t find the words \"art\" or \"artwork\" at that link. I did, however, find this: \"We believe that published software and documentation should be free software and free documentation.\"
Kluger, you are still underestimating the computer work needed for this kind of work, believe me.
No, I don\'t underestimate. In fact, if you read back, I talked about how much work is put into it. But that only reinforces my point that it doesn\'t make sense for everyone to keep reinventing the wheel.
(Just to make sure things don\'t get out of hand, I think I ought to let everyone know that I don\'t hold any guile against anyone here. In fact, I consider you all to be friends, in that you consider my arguments to be strong enough to warrant counter-arguments.)
No it\'s not an Adobe premiere plugin, if you speak about After-effect it\'s for post-production and has nothing to do with 3D.
no, I\'ve got After Effects. I really wish I could remember the program. I can ask the customer, as I will be meeting with him this Monday...
No Pixar characters are not the same. If you\'re so good, please make a model, animate it, put it into Planeshift. It tooks hours and hours for them to create a character.
Like I told you, I\'m *not* so good. The model I made was very high poly with very few actual objects (i.e., high res spheres)... and besides, you know I wouldn\'t put it into Planeshift. I\'ve declared all my creative works to be public domain. ;-)
No, a character in a movie is not made in two clicks. It takes a lot of time...
I know, I already said that...
Concerning my graphics, what? it\'s a test? You want to be sure I\'m not a newbie in gfx world?
no, actually I was trying to be friendly...
Sorry I don\'t answer to that, just know it\'s some skinning work and now models I can\'t speak about.
ah. that\'s fine if you can\'t speak about it...
Don\'t be so affirmative when you don\'t know something, please.
I would never do that. ?_?
-
It was nice of you to paste in this quote:
We believe that published software and documentation should be free software and free documentation.
Our code and documentation is out there for everyone in cvs and on the wiki web for anyone who wants it, free of charge and free of encumberment except for GPL.
Somewhat unhelpfully, you failed to paste in this quote just below it:For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons.
The artistic content mentioned here is neither software nor documentation. Therefore I can only assume you simply didn\'t read down this far. The GPL is not an appropriate license for non-code works and even the GPL group itself acknowledges this. To the extent this debate continues, you yourself are disagreeing with the entity you hold in highest reverence.
- Venge
-
you don\'t understand me. once they make a sketch, decide the personality, come up with a story and dialog, and determine all the characteristic, the amount of work on the computer is minimal . most of the work during design consists of getting it verified with the lead designer. as soon as they make the character, it takes about as much work to make a one minute ad as it does to make a 6 hour trilogy. look at Beast Wars, for example, and that\'s ooold..
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don\'t be so affirmative when you don\'t know something, please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would never do that. ?_?
You just done :) because actually what you said is totally false. It\'s not just designing a character, after you must model it, animate it, you must play on light, special effect, and much more...
No computer work is not minimal, and yes you\'re too affirmative.
I don\'t understand how you can say something without even checking if you right, and you\'re not.
It\'s the same in a video-game, you can\'t make a character simply on pushing 2 keys.
So your software can make any character?? Ok, if I told you I want a big Dragon with four wings, a green head and a red body, is this possible?
You could admit you\'re wrong on that hmmm?
-
Noononononono I didn\'t agree to Kluger that making characters for movies is easy.
It\'s nightmare hard!!!
It probebly takes weeks (including overtime and weekends) and requiers extreme experience.
But.. I have small experience in XSI and to \"make\" a character you click \"create\" and instead of primitiv you choose \"character\" and can choose from Male to Female.
But those 3 clicks are just the base and doesn\'t make it easiyer it only makes it faster the first step.
XSI is used in almost all movies including: Final Fantasy, Jurrasic Park, Dinusaur, Starwars...... the list goes on.
But only for charaters,, then when the character is done it is exported into Maya and rendered out in Renderman.
Thrust me, I have a online friend\\mentor who is almost Pixar material.. He may know jack about games but movies he knows.
Edit: And btw. Kluger, have you even tryed computer graphics?
-
Niber, again... believe me: it\'s my job :-)
When coming to movies, XSI is just one of the tools of choice. Usually you end up using different packages to solve different problems during the production. Also, to give you more info about the movies you citated: the first Jurassic Park was realized in Softimage3D, since XSI and Maya didn\'t exist at that time. Final Fantasy is mainly Maya plus a proprietary renderer called Kilauea. Dinosaurs had Maya used through the whole production. Same story for Starwars (I remember very well some dynamic rigging for the pods, IE). Other examples? LOTR: Maya has been used everywhere, except for the rendering. Need more? The Perfect Storm, Spiderman, Ice Age, and the list goes on...
Lightwave is dominating the broadcast effects/animation market, and has been used in several theater movie productions.
And what about MAX (Reign of Fire, Driven, Equilibrium, etc...), Cinema4D (Harry Potter and the chamber of secrets), Houdini (used in many many movies), etc...?
And this list could go on, even without entering in the merit of the many rendering engines that exist out there. This market is not as easy as it may look from the outside
About the \'click create character\' question, you must realize that that is only a quick solutions for beginners trying to learn how to use the software, just to give them something to play with before getting frustrated. A similar solution would never, never be used in a production set just above the amateur level.
-
Alright I\'m not going to argue about it sence you know more 3d than I do.
But about the many apps to make Cg movies in I\'m meen just strictly characters. And I have heard that XSI is great for insanly high-poly characters.
And I\'m just saying that it\'s possible to \"create\" a character from clicks,, wheter they use the function or not I wouldn\'t know..
-
Im proud to say that i have a 2 gig folder of textures i liked from other games and stole, just to keep around if there ever needed.
Sounds like maya\'s used in all the good movies =)
someone told me maya was more for movie cg when i got started. but i figured games will use movie quality cg soon so what the hell. (and they will to, have you seen doom3 screenshots?)
\"But.. I have small experience in XSI and to \"make\" a character you click \"create\" and instead of primitiv you choose \"character\" and can choose from Male to Female.
But those 3 clicks are just the base and doesn\'t make it easiyer it only makes it faster the first step. \"
thats a pretty big step, i know i have a generic male character i use without feet head or hands, and it saves alot of time.
\'you don\'t understand me. once they make a sketch, decide the personality, come up with a story and dialog, and determine all the characteristic, the amount of work on the computer is minimal\'
yeah kind of true, if someone drew 2 pictures (front and side) with alot of detail it could make the job alot easier as you could trace the curves and model it that way, as apoused to starting with a cylinder or somthing.
The story and dialog dont really help, there still gonna have to animate the whole thing anyway
-
djagger you should show me some work im interested.
-
So if you Vengeance and Boonet and so are ok with it I\'ll start an open project.
But I was wondering which programs we can use, personally I\'ve been expermentig with blender is this ok?
Wat\'s the best program to use? Linux and Windows plz.
And if you know some good tutoriols.
Thx a lot
-
yeah kind of true, if someone drew 2 pictures (front and side) with alot of detail it could make the job alot easier as you could trace the curves and model it that way, as apoused to starting with a cylinder or somthing.
Yes, and no baby, that is just the modeling class part of the game: the best still has to come. Believe me, that is just the beginning: the rest is still laying somewhere in the space comprised between those 2 sheets of paper and an oscar-prize winning actor. Modeling something that reminds you vaguely of a human being is different from portraying a smiling Audrey Hepburn or the subtly menacing devilish grin of an inspired Jack Nicholson.
Once you start doing some serious stuff, the 2 orthogonal pictures are just a simple beginning base. Quite often you don\'t even get them... ask someone what Paraform is used for ;-)
-
sekhmet, you wish to know about good software! now I can contribute to this thread. I am some kind of evangelist on this forum for a software called Wings3d. so, check out this post http://www.planeshift3d.com/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=4225&boardid=11&styleid=3
it explains a bit about the software.
i want to note that maya does have some newer scripts to help with modeling that i was unaware of. also, most of these programs have a very flexible scriping language which could create just about anything you wanted, if you had the time and knowledge to make it.
anyway, if you are considering modeling, and you need a free and still top notch solution to creating models, try out wings3d.
for the record, i read, understand, and respect the art license for planeshift. we release the code to help other people. releasing the art would not help anyone. there are plenty of free resources on the internet which you could learn from or expand on. the art is what makes the world OUR world.
hope this will help you a bit.
-
Sekhmet you can start any type of project you want and put your artwork under any type of license you want. Good luck with it.
-
Sorry, I\'ve been away for the weekend.
I don\'t think I should post to this thread anymore. I still might, though. My arguments are being grossly misrepresented, and it\'s starting to feel like I\'m being twisted apart between two cars. I\'m tired of talking in circles.
Besides that, it seems as though this thread is tapering to a close anyway.
Somewhat unhelpfully, you failed to paste in this quote just below it:
\"For other kinds of works, we recommend you consider the licenses proposed by Creative Commons.\" The artistic content mentioned here is neither software nor documentation. Therefore I can only assume you simply didn\'t read down this far. The GPL is not an appropriate license for non-code works and even the GPL group itself acknowledges this. To the extent this debate continues, you yourself are disagreeing with the entity you hold in highest reverence.
Actually, I don\'t hold them in the highest reverence, as I differ from them on the topic of GPL versus public domain. However, here\'s a more concise quote from earlier:
\"So the ethical issues of free software, the issues of a user\'s right to copy and modify software, are the same as such questions for other kinds of published information.\"
You just done because actually what you said is totally false. It\'s not just designing a character, after you must model it, animate it, you must play on light, special effect, and much more...
No computer work is not minimal, and yes you\'re too affirmative.
I don\'t understand how you can say something without even checking if you right, and you\'re not.
...
You could admit you\'re wrong on that hmmm?
I admit one thing: I could be misunderstood if you don\'t read everything I say. I said that the computer work is minimal, and that\'s exactly what I meant. I am surprised by how streamlined and efficient the work is. It costs about $600 per hour per person to make this stuff (well, for movies), so by planning everything that\'s done beforehand, buying the most efficient software, and not having to worry about CPU usage, the work is brought down to it\'s minimum possible...hence \"minimal\".
Here\'s something I said that may have confused you:
\"I don\'t think that\'s the program, but the point is still the same. :-? what really surprised me is how little work is really involved in creating the characters in those new Pixar-ish movies. I mean, just make a model, let it know what are eyes, corners of the mouth, etc., and it can automate speaking, facial expressions, and even movements recorded from a human model...\"
I don\'t mean that it\'s little work. I mean that it\'s much less than it seems. I would have otherwise thought the rendering of trillions of polygons to be difficult work. I thought it was pretty clear that this statement was unrelated to the whole thread, since it\'s just related to my personal amazement at the software that\'s available. Taken out of context, it can look like a contradiction.
In fact, I have stressed before the enormous work involved. I don\'t dispute that:
\"RE:\"Where did you get the idea that ... just a \'few\' clicks are necessary even using that software?\"
RE:\"and they are all but click-and-play tools that automagically produce models derived from a base set.\"
you see the confusion? I\'m saying the same thing.\"
\"now I\'m not saying that the movie makers are being overpaid. the whole movie production is immense.\"
\"No, I don\'t underestimate. In fact, if you read back, I talked about how much work is put into it. But that only reinforces my point that it doesn\'t make sense for everyone to keep reinventing the wheel.\"
Noononononono I didn\'t agree to Kluger that making characters for movies is easy.
It\'s nightmare hard!!!
Well, it\'s a good thing you didn\'t agree with me on that, because I never said that.
Edit: And btw. Kluger, have you even tryed computer graphics?
Ah good, an original question. I have sold various CG software, set it up, and oriented users with it. Back in the early \'90s, I wrote some DOS-based 3D rendering software, and I made things like floating AMD logos and simple objects (all by manually entering each coordinate and texture by hand in a text file!), but no, I practically have no right brain. :-? I can make technical drawings, and Xfig has become a good friend, since I\'m renovating my home, and I can go so far as to make beautiful screen savers and fractals, but that\'s all left-brain stuff. I tried drawing a monitor lizard for my newsletter (called, \"The Computer Monitor\"), and after fumbling with the mouse as if I was drawing with a pencil attached to the back of my head, I ended up with a monitor lizard that looked almost recognizable...except that it was clearly missing a leg! I made some Quake levels (oh man that software\'s confusing!), and I wanted to make a Barneystein Quake, but I quickly gave up. (You know how all the models in the original Quake look like someone had severely beaten them with a hammer? Mine looked like the scribble that little kids draw before they spontaneously learn to draw recognizable pictures.)
Well, if everyone\'s stuck in an infinite loop, I\'ll just tip myself out the door. My point, which was forgotten and misunderstood, is that imposing restrictions with copyrights is wrong and that I recommend gradually shifting the Planeshift license for graphics over to GPL or even public domain, all the while making sure not to disenfranchise the artists or make anyone unhappy. The way I see it, you\'re losing one enthusiastic and probably capable artist in Sekhmet by requiring the rights to everything submitted. I doubt that you\'re gaining any significant amount of art by requiring rights as opposed to what you would have gotten with artists interested in releasing their art to the public domain. Of course, making everything in-house is a separate concept, and if you feel that that would be best for your game, then so be it. Whether it\'s right for the art to be held proprietary we are in disagreement. I\'m very interested in the area of what\'s erroneously labelled \"intellectual property\", but we\'re not getting anywhere and that\'s not what Sekhmet was interested in finding out. It seems that Sekhmet has found out what he needs to know (though I hope that in the future Planeshift changes its policy.)
(If you\'re wondering what the edit was, I saw that I was missing a comma. :P)
-
Just my last reply.
Kluger: do you realize that our artists accept and like our license? We\'re not forcing them to accept it pointing a gun to their head. They work for PS because they think that that is the right way to handle the artwork question.
You say we probably just lost one potential artist? Could be, and so? Should we change our policy to follow the desires of each single person passing by? Maybe tomorrow a guy with some great ideas will come and tell us to become a pay2play game. Should we satisfy his desire because it\'s more moral in the respact of the big gaming companies to avoid developing a free MMORPG? This is just a sort of provocation, but I used it to make you understand that we set our rules for PS once and forever, to be clear and coherent.
We believe in our policy and won\'t change it.
About the movie/animation/computergraphics discussion, let\'s just cut it: you are talking about something you don\'t understand, and you\'re just talking nonsense when trying to twist your every sentence in order to appear subtle and condescendant.
-
Should we satisfy his desire because it\'s more moral in the respact of the big gaming companies to avoid developing a free MMORPG?
You should always make the morally right decision. I don\'t see how that could be a moral decision, as long as you\'re only talking about whether or not to choose for services.