Lightning
I quote AGAIN from the usage.html file "The Contents of this Disk may not be resold, re-distributed, or reproduced in any format." The operative words are THE CONTENTS OF THE DISK. Once you have changed the models by editing the XFR files and exporting, the models cease to be THE CONTENTS OF THE DISK. If you ran the original and the new through a file comparison utility they would show up as different files. Its not my fault that Greenworks have a rather explicitly worded licence that does not mention models derived from their own models. Their legal department should get their act together. You read any non-royalty free resource licence agreement and it will state that you are not alowed to redistribute the content
or dirrivatives thereof. You may say I am being picky, and maybe I am, but we are talking legal licencing agreements here.... letter of the law and all that!
Oshyan
The models maybe... though I would have to go through and compare preview renders to the xfrog renders to be sure, but what about the number of renders over the last few years that have the description containing the words "the trees are the xfrog ###### tree"
Again I quote from the usage.html file "The Contents of this Disk may not be resold, re-distributed,
or reproduced in any format."
If you produce a render containing a model from one of the disks you are reproducing the content of the disk in a render. The fact that it is no longer a model but a 2d representation of it doesn't matter. With a good lawyer, Greenworks could sue anyone who has ever used any of their conten for anything.... ever. Again, maybe I am being picky, but huge court cases have been won or lost on a lot more ambiguous language than is used in the Greenworks licence agreements.
Anyway, I didn't wish to start an argument over this and I will most certainly not be making available any models from now on (well not umless I make my own from scratch)
Miles