Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - 8.Journeys

Pages: [1]
1
So, here's the way it looks to me, after taking a wait and see approach. I've been paying a bunch a money for Creative Cloud for the last several years just so my daughter the artist can access it and learn various apps. I kept considering returning to the Allegorithmic group to get the updated versions, but then Adobe made its move. I made the mistake of buying Mixamo Fuse a few years back, and then watched Adobe do its thing. So I decided let's wait and see. Here I am, still paying money for a bunch of apps, the whole package so to speak, but wait, if I want to add these others I have to add another subscription on top of my top tier subscription, because as homeschooling parents, we don't qualify for teacher or student free licenses with Allegorithmic/Substance. Only affiliation with university counts. Let's consider the business model we're supporting.

Basic programs will continue with simple updates. Saturation is reached. No more money coming in, but we need to support all these employees, so what to do? Instead of finding a better path, we'll force everyone onto subscription. Great, so we pay to support Adobe's infrastructure while they work to add more apps and abilities to the mix, but those who support Adobe should then get access to the new goodies with their top tier subscription shouldn't they? Oh no, we'll make them pay on top of what they already pay if they want the new goodies they helped Adobe acquire. So... let's get this straight, we're supporting a business model where basically we're paying a bunch of people so that a few can make updates happen and keep things working, while Adobe improves their acquisitions, but the subscribers see none of that added benefit??? You want me to pay $50 a month so that my kid can learn to support Adobe products for the rest of her life.

Let's go back to the beginning of part 1-- @#$% you, Adobe.

2
We hate you Adobe. Working with your software is like dealing with the devil. Sure works magic when you want it to, but I die inside a little every single time. Is there any way you could return unused portions of my soul? I would like to dedicate Steppenwolf's "The Pusher" just for you.  >:(

3
I read on another site some older information about redistributing MDL shaders that said it was difficult to make shaders that are not reliant upon Allegorithmic libraries, which would prevent one from being able to redistribute them. Of course, I'm not sure if any of that applies to the situation today, or even if it was true then. I'm trying to figure out what I'm able to do without breaking the licensing agreement with Allegorithmic.

If I go in and make an mdl shader for iray using a new material root, and I then connect to it nodes from the library in the lower left corner, like emission color, thick translucent, boolean whatever (I'm a novice here), am I then able to export that shader and sell it to others as part of a pack of shaders? Or is that a violation? What must I do to ensure I am compliant with the terms of the licensing agreement?

4
Content - Substance Share - Re: License clarification.
 on: March 11, 2017, 12:21:46 pm 
And yet, here i am in March 2017, and I feel that I am being forced to once again ask these same questions others have already asked. What you say you mean doesn't matter if that doesn't jive with what your legal documents state as EULA, a binding agreement. So while I generally appreciate the fact that you guys allowed me to get this software on monthly payments, I'm left at the end scratching my head. I'm kind of upset and discouraged with what I'm seeing. Please allow me to explain.

So, I shelved this software for a bit, knowing that I was not at the skill level to use what I was buying. And I come back after having completed purchasing my definitive license, only to discover that my license for the old Substance Painter 1.7.3 will now run out in 20 days. I'm looking at my Substance Painter 2.5.1 and see that the goodies that are packaged with it are  not the same. I go looking and discover that they were moved to Substance Share. I can't see the materials on my hard drive anywhere to just move them (was that changed? another forum user mentions being able to do so), so I figure I'll just get my account at Substance Share and re-download those great materials. ONLY I discover that I am now being forced to agree to a new EULA that basically places all of the materials you already gave me along with my purchase of Substance Painter 1, which is now being taken away for some reason I cannot fathom---behind a new legal agreement, AND I find out that you want me to agree to a Creative Commons license for goods you've already given me rights to use. Here, from Substance Share's EULA agreement you put at the front page: In addition any Asset that you download from Substance Share that has been developed by Allegorithmic or that has been made available by third-parties ("Providers") that are not affiliated with Allegorithmic, will be subject to Allegorithmic‚Äôs standard Substance Share End User License Agreement ("Allegorithmic-EULA"), which is Creative Common's "Attribution 4.0 International" (please refer to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), is copied in Appendix 1 to these Terms... To clarify further, the webpage states:

If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

Retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:

identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);
a copyright notice;
a notice that refers to this Public License;
a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;
a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;

indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and
indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.

You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.

So please explain where you provide us with the information that we must supply along with any of the materials we use and the manner you request we supply it. What exactly are you asking? Please state for public record what it is you request that we do if we use any of these materials commercially--because the legalese in your EULA does not appear to explain what you require in exchange for our agreeing to be so bound. Maybe I missed it. It was a wall of legalese.

I don't know if you're aware, although I assume you are--and I only know this because I researched it for something I myself released under Creative Commons--but you cannot enforce a change in license under Creative Commons once you've delivered the goods under another license. As in, you are not allowed to push a more restrictive license off on someone after you've given them something under another license. Maybe I'm mistaken, but essentially, you're denying me access to goods I've paid for and should be able to use commercially because that was my understanding of the deal I made with your company back when I began purchasing these goods. But now you're telling me that if I do want to use them commercially, I've got to agree to a license forcing me to give credit and describe how I've modified the goods, in theory, whenever they appear--as others have stated, in screenshots, etc. If that is true, I can tell you why there aren't tons of raving reviews of your products over at Unity. Until this realization, I was kind of wondering why that was myself.

How dare you take goods that were installed with the previous version of your software, which I did in fact give you money for, remove them, then stick them up under a Creative Commons license you then attempt to force me to agree to if I wish to continue using them? It suggests that the license agreement was your motivation for removing them from your software when you moved to the new version. When you take away my license for the original version of the software in 20 days, I will effectively lose access to something that should be mine to continue to use regardless of whatever new EULA you desire to place upon them. Can you possibly provide a workaround so that I can simply copy the alphas, materials, particles, etc into my newer version of your software, or will you insist upon attempting to force me into agreeing to a license that you cannot legally bind me to since you introduced it after money was exchange for goods under the previous EULA? I can't believe nobody called you guys out on this. Giving you credit is not a bad thing, nor is paying for what you're selling--but I'm not talking about anything like that. I'm talking about something I had that I feel is now being taken from me when I've done nothing but be a loyal, paying customer for all this time. Why is that?  :(

Furthermore, if I read the agreement correctly, you're essentially asking me to agree with you that you aren't responsible if someone else's goods are delivered unlawfully through your website and furthermore you are not in any way responsible for damages that arise if I then use those goods and get sued. That's rich.

Pages: [1]