Chris Cason schrieb:
> [...]
> 
> It may be that there is no one existing license (other than POV's own) that
> fits all our needs. However in a pinch we could probably say that any POV
> source file is considered program code since SDL is what we parse, and as
> such a program-oriented license may be more suitable. But if so, not one that
> refers exclusively to 'executables' since the includes aren't that.

The central question this all leads to is if a rendered image is a 
derived work of the scene (and all include files) it is generated from. 
    I think (but IANAL) that for this it would be necessary that some 
aspect of the scene/include files that is subject to copyright (usually 
this requires a minimum level of originality and individuality) to be 
still present in the rendered image.  How exactly this is defined 
differs between Copyright laws - see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

A good example for a scene element where this is certainly the case is a 
hand modelled mesh, like for example a Poser figure.  An example where 
this most likely cannot be assumed is something like a random placement 
system for objects - the resulting random positions which are the only 
thing still visible in the image are certainly not copyrightable.  But 
in most cases the situation is less clear and will even differ between 
states and copyright laws.

To uniformly handle all types of include file a special license would be 
needed that regulates any use of a file no matter how exactly the law 
sees this use.  One option that would not require designing a new 
license would be to use an existing one intended for programs (like the 
GPL) and explicitly exclude images made using the files from the 
restrictions of the license.  This would essentially allow unlimited use 
for creating images (including commercial use) but would still impose 
the license conditions on any modifications and distribution of the 
include file itself.

-- Christoph

Post a reply to this message