Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Well, the GPL isn't the only Open Source License option that could be used, and is probably not the one that any hypothetical Carrara OpenSource release would be made under.
Read from:https://www.blender.org/get-involved/developers/commercial-add-ons/
Blender can be pursuaded to include a commercial Daz bridge if Daz is willing to shell out 250 EUR every month to the blender foundation as a Diamond level partner. I would not be surprised if Zero Brush or Alchemy followed that route. Otherwise one still has to work through the GPL clauses. The problem with that, as I said earlier, is what can be interpreted as "combined work" in legal terms.
Linking this library statically or dynamically with other modules is making a combined work based on this library. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License cover the whole combination.Once something gets released under GPL, the original authors have no control on its (re)distribution. That is, they can continue to charge for the IP but if somebody decides to distribute that freely, they can't stop that either. Classical example of this is CentOS redistributing RHEL. You can make out what that means from this analogy. Now imagine the scenario where folks would start redistributing Genesis (or any Daz IP) for free without any restrictions from Daz.
I dropped in because somebody said open-source in the commons forum and I couldn't resist LOL. Never thought it would reach this far. But I am willing to dismiss those reactions as bitter talk coming out of sheer frustration. I guess Carrara user base has more important things to worry about now that Daz is making their stand clear.
I have no vested interest in Blender whatsoever. I have seen the GPL ecosystem stay resilient in the face of such issues and strongly believe that it is immune to such threats (I already gave an example earlier). It rather makes me wonder why people did not account for this possibility when there were no clear signals provided to pin hopes on. I think there was a fair amount of warning if one could see the signs of stagnancy. But I guess most Carrara users were too unwilling to accept that or were still in a state of denial. Now I feel lucky I was not one of them
Jack of all trades, Master of None comes to mind whenever folks bring up all the stuff that blender can do. Most folks far prefer dedicated tools, which seems to keep being ignored.
I think I already said that in (1) here https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/2709551/#Comment_2709551
But I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
Yes, 1) The commercial guidance is from where the new features that Joe Average also wants is coming from
2) That whether or not the Blender Foundation has one more line of code written, Blender is already free & opensource without paying another cent.
3) There are likely entertainment based businesses that use their own proprietary developed Blender features in-house and you'd never know it. Most are just little tweeks so no biggy that they aren't released to public but a few features might be quite advanced. Don't forget most new technical research in this field is already publically government/univesity funded already. The good techical science part of it then gets filtered as to whether it is good for a program like Blender. Poser's superfly renderer is based off of cycles. Also every bit of code or addon that does make it to Blender starts out as a personal or business or charitable non-released project that has no threat of being forced to be made opensource because well who wants incomplete broken code released to public? So who decides when a feature is finished, tested, and render for public release if it's heald privately?
4) Most IT workers know that modern business don't want permanent IT staff and to hire a staff with the sort of expertise to development Blender ain't easy to come by even offering top salary, so how are businesses that need and want a bespoke 3D modeling and animation application for their business supposed to get such an application development staffed? They are not going to offer Autodesk or such bussinesses enough money most likely, so it's down to the Blender Foundation as the most practical and affordable way to fund that development. They also get to share costs with other businesses and businesses are beside themselves with this point: some of the costs of that development are actually paid by governments and private endusers making donations to the Blender Foundation. Any business that tried to wrest control of Blender would soon be met with one or more independent forks of Blender.
Sorry for the late reply. I haven't checked here in a while. The biggest issue I have is that I used to be able to use iRay in the viewport and have it use the Render settings. So it would use convergence. Apparently, I'm the only one that this ever worked this way. Maybe there was something "wrong" (I'd call it right) on my machine. But whatever the case, my renders would stop after a while when I used iRay in the viewport. I have a new machine and new drive(s). Right now, it ignores the convergence settings no matter what, even if you use Interactive mode. Same if you set it to use Photoreal or blend to render settings. This means I have to manually limit the number of iterations or set a limit on time which means every time I move the camera, the scene renders differently. If I don't set any limit, then it renders continuously (even on an empty scene) and creates unnecessary heat by my video card(s) and CPU. Not to mention the excessive power used. This means I can't just leave DAZ Studio on anymore for fear that I'm wasting power for nothing and while I have good ventilation, having everything produce excessive heat for extended periods of time is something I'd like to avoid. This also means it slows down the rest of my machine because anything that tries to use the video cards will be slowed down since the video card is busy rendering useless iterations. iRay in the viewport is just a colossal mess in DAZ Studio. And I didn't mention that it's all too easy to get DAZ Studio in a state where rendering will just slow down to a crawl (and we're talking dual 1080 Ti's here). The worst part is that it appears to save these bad settings in your scene. So even if you reset your settings to default, your scenes are essentially corrupted.
The other thing is that loading G3F right now is taking over a minute. Sometimes 2 minutes to load. And I'm talking just the base figure. So loading scenes takes a really long time.
Then there are issues with lighting and dome settings. In some cases, light does not cast shadows on the floor with the floor setting. It's not critical, but means quick previews don't work anymore.
I could go on. But the point is that there are so many bugs or "features" that just don't work correctly that it's near impossible to get anything done anymore. And I have a really good system. And I really don't want to go back to using OpenGL in the viewport (aka "Texture Shaded").
I've offered to fix these bugs myself several times. But I don't think the support staff even told the developers of this.
yeah I have struggled to get task manager up to kill studio when it has gone to CPU too using the preview.
I prefer Octane as that just will not start if the scene is too big to fit on my card, its a pity iray cannot have that option.
...well said.
...
...Pixar develops all their software in house. They spent three years alone to create the hair for the character Merida, which included writing proprietary software and building custom hardware. When you have the gigabucks you can do that and don't need someone else's software.
...actually I find having Iray dump the process to CPU instead of outright crashing or refusing to render at all is a good contingency. Yeah, it may take a bit longer but it finishes.
Sorry for the late reply. I haven't checked here in a while. The biggest issue I have is that I used to be able to use iRay in the viewport and have it use the Render settings. So it would use convergence. Apparently, I'm the only one that this ever worked this way. Maybe there was something "wrong" (I'd call it right) on my machine. But whatever the case, my renders would stop after a while when I used iRay in the viewport. I have a new machine and new drive(s). Right now, it ignores the convergence settings no matter what, even if you use Interactive mode. Same if you set it to use Photoreal or blend to render settings. This means I have to manually limit the number of iterations or set a limit on time which means every time I move the camera, the scene renders differently. If I don't set any limit, then it renders continuously (even on an empty scene) and creates unnecessary heat by my video card(s) and CPU. Not to mention the excessive power used. This means I can't just leave DAZ Studio on anymore for fear that I'm wasting power for nothing and while I have good ventilation, having everything produce excessive heat for extended periods of time is something I'd like to avoid. This also means it slows down the rest of my machine because anything that tries to use the video cards will be slowed down since the video card is busy rendering useless iterations. iRay in the viewport is just a colossal mess in DAZ Studio. And I didn't mention that it's all too easy to get DAZ Studio in a state where rendering will just slow down to a crawl (and we're talking dual 1080 Ti's here). The worst part is that it appears to save these bad settings in your scene. So even if you reset your settings to default, your scenes are essentially corrupted.
The other thing is that loading G3F right now is taking over a minute. Sometimes 2 minutes to load. And I'm talking just the base figure. So loading scenes takes a really long time.
Then there are issues with lighting and dome settings. In some cases, light does not cast shadows on the floor with the floor setting. It's not critical, but means quick previews don't work anymore.
I could go on. But the point is that there are so many bugs or "features" that just don't work correctly that it's near impossible to get anything done anymore. And I have a really good system. And I really don't want to go back to using OpenGL in the viewport (aka "Texture Shaded").
I've offered to fix these bugs myself several times. But I don't think the support staff even told the developers of this.
The first part doesn't sound like a bug, per se. That sounds to me like Iray VR is what is being used to drive the viewport now in Iray Preview mode,since you're saying the render doesn't stop after a period of time like it used to.
Greetings,
You have a deep misunderstanding of the GPL if you think that the code for an importer being GPLed could cause the data files that constitute Genesis, or any code that is not directly part of the importer, to be freely redistributable or surrender IP protections on them.
I appreciate your desire to talk about free software, and support it, but despite your confidence your legal understanding is less than great. I know I'm being a fool for trying to explain this and this is also the wrong forum for it, but you keep repeating incorrect statements. It'd be very straightforward to offer a Blender importer that caused absolutely zero DAZ IP (other than potentially the importer itself) to be brought under the GPL. It is not difficult to build software that interoperates with GPLed software and does not become GPLed itself.
In no circumstances, whatsoever, would any GPLed code cause the _Genesis_ models themselves to be somehow GPLed. That's simply wrong.
If you wish to continue this discussion that is unrelated to Carrara, PM me. I've been down this path too many times before.
-- Morgan
Since you challenged my knowledge in this matter publicly, it is only befitting that I present my defense in public as well. And I mean ONLY as my defense and not as a reciprocal threat to your skills or knowledge. As you have already demonstrated a fair understanding of the GPL so I would skip all the basics and focus only on the issue - the issue of assuming that the Genesis package is only content.
I am taking the example of "Genesis 3 starter essentials" package (SKU 21630) hereafter referred as "GSE". The DAZ customer is allowed to download the GSE _only_ as a single atomic "package" which contains a few scripts "daz_3d_21630_genesis_3_female_starter_essentials.dsa" and "daz_3d_21630_genesis_3_male_starter_essentials.dsa" (read combined as program A) which are invoked by another program B (Daz Studio) during installation. Also, program A uses the API of program B to invoke it thereby establishing a clear linkage. The entire GSE "package" therefore should be considered as a software "module" which clearly demonstrates linkage to program B.
If Program B (Daz Studio) can be challenged under GPL (due to the linkage with the Blender bridge), so can any of its "module" linking to it. Refer FAQ https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLModuleLicense
Needless to say, what would then happen to Genesis (or for that matter, "several" other "packages" Daz ever released as content).
Ah, now I think I see the source of our misunderstanding. In computer terms, "linking" has a specific meaning. The library is kind of like a geograft--the main program has code points that connect to the library the way DAZ models have vertices that mate with the outer ring of a geograft's vertices, and the static linker program stitches the parts together at compile time or the dynamic linker redirects calls to virtually stitch them together at runtime.
Linking isn't the only way to interoperate, and bridges that interoperate without linking or directly including the GPL source code would not have to be made GPL.
I think you are muddling the concept of linking in software programs with that of your modeling knowledge. If you have ever written software code, you would not have drawn such vague/absurd analogy. Also, when GPL specifies linkage it means the way "software" links not how constructs of any 3D models can be associated.
I think I should clarify that the initial debate was on the topic of implementing a Daz "bridge" to Blender (bridge, as in the GoZ bridge of ZBrush) and it being distributed with Daz Studio. The "importer" that you now mention sounds like a standalone program which would import Daz studio files in Blender. I assume you are refering to the one hinted by j cade here. I could not find any other reference to the word "importer" in this thread, neither any reference to any similar concept (outside the bridge of course). If it is the one that j cade mentioned, I have never questioned the viability of that in any of my posts as it is not distributed with Daz Studio.
Also could you please substantiate your claims to the text I marked in bold red in your quote?
Greetings,
I am a fool for trying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is one of those absolutely insane things where two non-lawyers disagree passionately about the minute implications of a completely hypothetical legal edge case that will never actually happen. It's the second worst kind of Internet discourse, right after Youtube comments. (Edit: And because I know I have to make this clear, I'm not 'challenging' you or suggesting it's YOUR fault. I shouldn't have waded in; I'm supposed to know better.)
If you want to have a discussion and report back to the thread at some point, my PM is open.
-- Morgan
<double post>
But then, you do realize that even a single edge case is sufficient to throw the entire Daz content library (along with Studio) in the GPL domain.
I did mention in the beginning itself that import/export would be the best approach for integration with Blender. But then you only started suggesting those interop options and how that would work with GPL. Again, not trying to accuse anyone here but just keeping things in perspective.
...please, there are other threads for discussing Daz and Blender. Really don't want this one closed.
I have said this earlier, and am repeating again - if anyone has any issues with respect to involvement of non-Carrara users or topics not related to Carrara in this thread, then please request the mods to have this thread moved to Carrara forums.
EDIT: In addition to that, if anyone has any criticism to any of my posts here, please PM me or raise a separate topic for it in the commons. Any public criticism to my posts here would mean that the criticisms are intended for public participation, and I may have the obligation to respond accordingly, if required.
So, getting back on topic, here's a variation of the Kickstarter someone suggested earlier...
Perhaps DAZ could pick a list of top reported crash/lockup bugs, estimate the development cost to fix them, and run a Kickstarter to raise the money. They could do such "bug bounties" with small batches of bugs to make it more likely to meet the goal and keep everyone's investment small until we see if that process can work.
I personally think Daz could earn some profit by doing a really cursory pass at 'updating' Carrara, just so they could claim they had done so, and then put a few interns toward increasing visibility, encouraging Carrara folks to show off what it can do, etc.
I mean, I hope they do more than that, but even that minimum should at least shake the tree and see if the app has some play before investing anything significant.
Sounds good to me.
Not sure how much software development you have done Will, but even a "cursory pass" could be a significant undertaking that could take weeks/months of effort. This would be particularly the case if your were compiling the code against libraries that have since moved on significantly (eg they were code shared with DS). If all the developers of the last version of Carrara have left DAZ or were external contractors anyway, then this task becomes even more daunting.
I'm aware, but if they aren't able to do _anything_ with the code, then it really is dead and it would be nice if they admitted it. (Though, admittedly, they have no real incentive to do so)
...unless Studio becomes capable of generating and supporting terrain and environmental development there will be a need for programmes like Carrara.
I find Studio begins to slow down even with a medium sized Stonemason set. When Daz released Andrey's Forest set, it seriously tested the limits of the programme as well as many people's systems. True, there have been improvments and new features added over the years, however Studio's main functions are still primarily character posing, morphing, rigging, and texturing (along with rendering), it simply is not designed to handle large environments and terrains with loads of polys and high detail like say a Howie Farkes set for Carrara involves.
Better functionality for importing/loading Daz figures and "non Poser" (.DUF) meshes into Carrara is what I would prefer to see.