Using Irrlicht and 3d models commercially

[pault]

I find Irrlicht to be excellent, in conjunction with Dev-Cpp.

I am planning to use it commercially (Nikolaus is incredibly reasonable, being willing to let his users sell their product without having to do any more than acknowledge Irrlicht and the fact that it has been used in their engine), but to do so would need to include .3ds, .x, .ms3d models with the software.
I have two other questions:

(1) Can I use a freeware modeleller to create my 3d models (in, for example, Quake - .md2, in Discreet/Studio Max - .3ds, in Milkshape - .ms3d) and either sell independently the models produced or include them unaltered in my commercial application.

(2) Do I need to have a licence with the company who designed the model format itself? For example, if I bought Milkshape and sold Milkshape models would the fact that I bought Milkshape be enough to entitle/enable me to sell or commercially distribute models in Milkshape .ms3d format?
Or do I need to have a separate commercial arrangement with them.

It would be nice to think that it is just the viewer/designer that you pay for and the model format itself can be used by anyone free - but hey that's just me being plain old optimistic!

As I say if it's okay to use a freeware modeler to produce models then Misfit would be my initial choice ( I like its methods of texturing), though I will purchase Milkshape if it is worth it (need to look at the trial software).

ps I've heard Milkshape is a pain to get registered (before or after trial expires?) - any thoughts on that anyone?

Cheers

[vermeer]

You are free to use a freeware modeler and sell the models you produce with it, no matter the format. Only some exceptions.

You can develope comercial aplications with irrlicht and also gain momeny with them. No problem.

The ms3d, 3ds, x, obj , md2, md3, etc,etc, are free for comercial selling the models, to.

The bsp format is also free; just that if you use any of ID Software tools, you then can't use the resulting thing for comercial gain.But as you see, that is related to the tool used, not really the format.

There are some freeware modelers that do not allow to produce models that you will sell later. Example : Metasequoia LE, a fantastic freeware modeler. One that you can use for comercial gain also, is the wonderful Wings3d. Or Blender3d.

Though , for someone starting I'd recommend Wings3d. Anim8or is very easy to use, too.

You actually don't need to buy any softwares.

Free tools:
Modellers: wings3d.com , anim8or.com . blender.org

texturing and general 2d tools: gimp.org , gimp.org/windows
Ultimate Paint : http://www.ultimatepaint.com/download.php (but grab the "freeware edition")

Uv mapping: wings3d, blender.org ...and lithunwrap.

[Fluffy Bunny]

The bsp format is also free; just that if you use any of ID Software tools, you then can't use the resulting thing for comercial gain.But as you see, that is related to the tool used, not really the format.

This used to be true, but GTKRadiant and all the related tools were recently released under the GPL without any sort of commercial usage restriction.

[Quall]

Doesn't GPL state that anything derived from the source must be under GPL as well? Wouldn't that mean that your game would be GPL, so anyone who purchased it could also distribute it legally?

[Baal Cadar]

If you derive your game from the gtkRadiant source, then yes. But if you just use GtkRadiant to generate the maps of your game, then not. Same is true for Blender as a modeller or any use of any other GPL licensed application. The user can do with it whatever he/she wants, without any limitation. Only the distribution of the program and its derivatives itself is regulated.

[vermeer]

didn't kno it had becoem gpl

[B.lackhead]

You can even sell the runtimes which you generated using the Blender game engine. Try the new bullet physics engine, its great fun.

If you don't need physics stick to Blender 2.34 or even 2.25, as they produce the most reliable output, which even runs on older systems at a decent speed.

Blender does much more, than people usually can handle, but i think thats one of the "problems" with every advanced 3D- soft.

[vermeer]

no, it has other problems, not present in expensive comercial softwares. And that said from one that actually is forced every day to get the limit of the needed task with every feature. And someone that actually enjoys Blender. But is not "as advanced".You get to know it when you can handle advanced features easily, to discover how many limits there are, which aren't in expensive tools. This is ok, is a free. But there shouldbe not generated false expectatives about it. It's very advanced, but there are some strong limits also.

[Rikan]

I think it is the FAQ of the GPL that states that their 'copyleft' restrictions (that's the word for having you to offer your source code if you've used GPLed or even LGPLed code in your works) only applies to the code itself and not to any data the code may produce.

That means - please correct me if there's a mistake...

• If you use a GPLed 3D modeler you don't need to hand out the source code of your program that uses the resulting model.
• If you adapt a GPLed program to your needs, keep it to yourself and use the resulting data for your intended program project you don't need to hand out any source code - neither the modified program nor your project. But it is good manners to distribute the modified GPLed program if the modifications would be of common interest.
• Including GPLed or LGPLed code in your project would 'infect' your complete project with the given license and would have to be treated accordingly.
• The main difference between GPL and LGPL is that linking your code to an LGPLed library does not place your program under the LPGL, but linking to a GPLed library does. Note that static linking to a library may be counted as 'inclusion in your works' in terms of the licenses as well.

The last point is the most interesting, why the difference between static and dynamic linking?

The reason behind that is because the library itself is (at least) LGPLed - anyone may come and put out an improved version of that library. Better optimizations, security fixes, and users should be able to replace the version of the library you distributed along with your software with the improved version they got.

Of course that isn't possible if that library has been statically linked or was modified. Having the source code distributed allows anyone to do necessary changes to the library, for example porting said security fixes which have been done to the original version.


I hope that answers the most common questions someone may come across when dealing with (L)GPLed software.

[Rikan]

As an afterthought, issues with the GPL or LGPL don't affect any further restrictions the author of the program may have placed on the program itself or its resulting data.

Just as seen above, if the programmer of a 3D modeler says that models created by his program must not be used in commercial products, then there's nothing more to say, regardless whether the program itself is GPLed or not.