It's more like the paintbrush than the paint but the principle does seem
ridiculous when put that way, e.g. would you buy a wrench that came with a
tag that said it was OK for personal use but if you used it to build a car,
then you couldn't ever sell the car.

On the other hand, since I wouldn't personally have any desire to sell or
profit from images then I will have a look at this. BTW if I produced
images and sold them but they were so bad that I made a loss rather than a
profit, would that be acceptable ?


Alex McMurray wrote:

> Lutz Kretzschmar wrote:
>
> > Be sure to read the licensing for Lightflow, it may hold some
> > surprises. I find that the most limiting aspect is that you are not
> > free to do what you want with the images you render with it. They may
> > not be sold or otherwise used for profit.
> >
>
> That sounds ridiculous, it is like a paint manufacturer saying that you
> cannot sell your painting because you used their paint.
> POVray and Moray are tops anyway.
>
> --
>   ,-._|\  Alex McMurray
>  /  Oz  \ ale### [at] melbpcorgau               Melbourne PC User Group.
>  \_,--.x/Melton. Vic.  3337                     Australia
>        v

Post a reply to this message