Nathan Kopp wrote:

> This post processing tool _could_ be considered to be part of the rendering
> tool, since it is part of the package.  It definately could not be
> considered to be a "paint program such as PhotoShop(tm)".  So, would such an
> implementation be acceptable under the current rule?

If you mean the distribution would contain:

pvengine.exe 
postproc.exe

you run the risk of being in the same boat as if you were
to just use photoshop.exe to do your post processing work.
Even though the way the processing is accomplished is
different you are requiring a seperate outside utility
that is not part of the internal rendering engine. I think
you would be walking a fine line with this one and the
armchair lawyers could present reasonable arguments against
it.

My 2c only.

-- 
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/

Post a reply to this message