Thorsten Froehlich  wrote in message <44e01a4a$1@news.povray.org>:
>> The major problem with POV-Ray's license is the non-commercial clauses. That
>> is what is preventing POV-Ray from being included in Linux distributions.
> This is simply not true, as I pointed out before. Repeating it does not make
> your statement true.

I am sorry, but for this particular point, that is you who did not read what
I wrote.

You pointed that there is a clause allowing commercial use for
distributions, and that is perfectly right. But there is still a general
non-commercial clause. But distributions do not require just the right to
distribute, even commercially. They need *guidelines*, which are both a
necessity when handling thousands of packages, and a service to the users.
The non-commercial clause breaks these guidelines.

> You are wrong. It upset all POV-team members.

So much for the singular/plural distinction in English.

> The packaging was one major problem, which mislead the customer to believe
> they acquired a commercial software, and with only our contact information
> available inside, the same "clueless" buyer could believe we also made the
> CDs.

This is a different question, and, as I said, no one has any problem with
requiring spectacular responsibility claims from third-parties distributors.

>	Either way, the problem was not "psychological" but that the company
> who made those CDs violated the whole "spirit of the license" by bending
> what it allowed as far as they could.

Yes, they did. But *why do you care*?

More specifically, why do you care so much that you make installing POV-Ray
so much more difficult for thousands of users?

In others words, what is your order of priorities?

[ ] make POV-Ray a good soft (achieved)
[ ] prevent bad guys from using it
[ ] allow the community to use it as comfortably as possible

Please, could you order these items?

Post a reply to this message