To summarise the discussions so far on defining a license for an area on 
povray.org to hold collections of objects etc.:

We seem to have 100% vote for adopting a single license for the whole 
collection (3 out of 3).
Similarly all seem keen on making the collection as open to re-use as 
possible.

It sounds like the POV-Ray license would not be able to cover this 
collection without modification.

I'm not sure that the GPL or LGPL licenses are all that appropriate because 
they contain a lot of terminology that is exclusively oriented towards 
software/programs rather than works of a creative or artistic nature (no 
offence to application developers intended). I think this was probably why 
the Creative Commons Licenses came into being. The reproduction and 
distribution of images and computerised descriptions of scenes can throw up 
unique issues, such as, when is an image a reproduction and when is it a 
representation of the original work? (i.e. is a thumbnail a copy or can it 
reasonably be used in an index or search engine).

Unless we can enlist the help of a licensing Guru then rolling our own is 
probably out of the question.

I therefore think we're probably down to picking from the list of available 
Creative Commons licenses/certificates. Would anyone care to agree or 
disagree with that?

To move on into some of the detail:

On the subject of scene files, I didn't necessarily see this as being a 
place where finished scenes would go, although samples and example scene 
files could accompany objects, textures, macros and include files to 
illustrate their use. I would argue that there are other forums where fully 
finished and refined scenes can be maintained including the IRTC and various 
Internet galleries, POV-Ray rings etc.

If an image is rendered from a sample scene file and sold on Zazzle or to 
the Tate Gallery, then I would propose that we have no more access to the 
cash than the guys who made the pile of bricks that the Tate Gallery bought 
for a wheelbarrow full of money a few years back. The money goes to the 
artist who makes the sale. In any case, if very minor changes could get the 
artist/charlatan out of trouble, then, would the addition of a corporate 
logo to your pride and joy really make you feel any better?

The other issue raised by Sabrina and Nemesis is around whether users of the 
collection should be required to contribute their work back to the 
collection. My vote is that we don't impose such a restriction. Personally 
I'd like to see a license that's about as close to public domain as we think 
we can get. I'd prefer one that allows re-use for both commercial and 
non-commercial purposes without needing to give credit to the original 
authors. I'd also like people to be able to redistribute the files in 
original or modified form. I think we should maybe suggest that giving 
credit is polite, but not make it a licensing condition.

Am I out on my own now, or is anyone else thinking along the same lines?

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message