Hi Nemesis,

I may be wrong, but I think we're all strenuously agreeing with each other 
on this. I think we're all saying that we want people to be able to use 
generated images in any way they want.

"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message 
news:web.457c97716ea74aa9662fe7250@news.povray.org...
> it would help make things clear if you addressed how image licensing would
> cope with the following:
>

The problem is that if we don't specifically define that we want people to 
be able to use the generated images, they don't, by default, get any rights 
to do so.

> What if someone sees a cool povray image (not source) and recreates it in
> Blender and renders it in yafray almost matching the original lighting,
> colors and camera positioning and angles?  Isn't that also the same as a
> povray render of a real world Volkwagen?  Can Volkswagen sue you for 
> design
> likeliness?
>

I think this was covered by someone in this thread and the answer is that 
yes, there are circumstances where Volkswagen could theoretically sue you, 
although, in the majority of circumstances they probably wouldn't unless 
your image risks bringing their brand into disrepute. You start pumping out 
something resembling a well known cartoon character and you might be more 
likely to attract the lawyers.

> If someone just releases the jpg how can we now if they are
> ripping from a povray include file description of a 3D model or have come
> up with something of their own?
>

That's a little beside the point. We're trying to avoid people having to 
stand up in front of a judge to prove anything.

> I think limiting usage of generated images would be worse than licensing 
> the
> include file sources under the GPL, which would still permit commercial
> usage as long as sources are distributed with the binary.  Why would 
> people
> people use an include file in the first place if they can't use it to
> generate an image?
>

That's the point. If we don't explicitly cover it, we limit the usage. By 
covering it we can permit people to use the images.

> Perhaps you should clarify in what way such limitation is regarded.  Is it
> just a matter of attributing credit to the original author?  Is it
> prohibition of generated images for use in commercial products?
>
> One of the reasons i'd like to see povray include files improved is so 
> that
> people can actually use povray for commercial use indeed.  Like a designer
> or architect designing scenes with it rather than VRay or something...
>

That's where I think we're all agreeing.

> Anyway, i'll let it up to you guys to decide on such thorny issues.  I'm
> just a software programmer and source code is the only thing that matters
> to me.  Only thing i know is that GPLed GCC don't limits what license i 
> put
> on generated binaries...
>

This is probably where the missunderstanding originates, because a binary 
conventionaly refers to assembled application code, not to what you generate 
with it.
Images would not (at least not in my experience) be classed as binaries and 
are therefore not explicitly covered by the GPL or LGPL.
By 'wrapping' the license in a statement to clarify the use of the images, 
we can make the situation clear and permit people to use the generated 
images any way they want.

I hope this clarifies things.

Regards
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message