nemesis schrieb:
> 
> hmm?  Why is generated image licensing a concern?  Just to draw an example
> from programming languages and environments:  most, if not all, compilers
> do not place any limitations on what kind of license the generated
> binaries/executables should be under.  It means you can use a compiler
> licensed under the GPL, say, GCC, and still license the generated
> executable for your source code under some proprietary license of your
> choice.

Please read what i wrote in:

Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:40:19 +0100
From: Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Newsgroups: povray.general

For all discussed licenses (both software licenses and CC) this depends 
on if the image can be regarded as derived works on the include files. 
And as illustrated there are definitely cases where this is the case and 
there are definitely cases where this isn't.

Concerning LGPL - you should keep in mind that this would allow anyone 
to integrate the covered include files into different 3D packages (by 
translating into a different language) and distribute them as a closed 
product.  This will be difficult in some cases (for example when 
POV-Ray's procedural patterns are used) but will be fairly straight away 
  for example for a tree generator.  I don't regard this possibility as 
bad per se but everyone considering using such a license should keep 
that in mind.  Trying to avoid this would suggest using the CC-'share 
alike' licenses.  In some cases this will of course impose significant 
unintended restrictions to the images using the file (see above).

-- Christoph

Post a reply to this message