Chris B wrote:
> 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?

BSD and MIT licenses might also be an option, since they refer to source
code, which SDL is, and binary form, which the final images would be. I
didn't read them in their entirety, but I didn't see any references to
'program' or 'executable' in there.

www.opensource.org/licenses has several others that might work,
depending on their wording. The Academic Free License looks wordy but
seemed general enough to be used for everything.

> 
> 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.

I separated my opinions since the POV-Ray license did the same, and
because I got lost trying to follow the discussion before this thread.
If we want to just avoid finished scenes for this discussion and focus
on a library of reusable items and demo scenes, great.

> 
> 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?

Bricks do make a good analogy for the items in an include library. I
would be flattered to see my texture used in a nice picture on Zazzle,
but I would be annoyed to see my whole scene with someone else's name on
it. I was focusing that argument on finished scenes.

> 
> 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. 
> 
> 



It seems like we are working backwards, going from established and known
licenses and taking out the parts we don't need. Let's start from the
ground and work up.

So, the issues I can think of are copyright, re-distribution of the
include, giving credit, commercial use, and re-distributing it under
another license.

I don't think we can get rid of copyright. The person who writes each
snippet of code would still have the right to give it away, sell it, do
what ever they want with their piece of code. I also think that the
license should enforce the copyright notice in any re-packaged forms of
the include. It's a license for use, not a contract for sale of the items.

I also think the library as a whole should encourage giving credit to
the include and the author of the piece that is used, but I don't think
it needs to be a term in the license. It might be easier to use an
established license, but most of them enforce some display of copyright
being kept with the include file.

Now, re-distributing the entire include seems the easy part. Anyone who
downloads a copy should at least be able to pass it on under the same
terms they license they received it. I think they should also be able to
redistribute part of the include as well, since that would make
publishing scene code. I don't think it is necessary for this include to
force people using it to put any scene using it under the same license,
like the GPL would.

Stuff like the BSD and Creative Commons Attribution licenses would allow
them to then re-license it under any other license as well. That would
solve any problem with commercial use, since all someone would have to
do is re-license the library to them self under terms that would allow
it. If Pixar thinks we can make a better glass of water then they can, I
say we let them use it.

What I don't like about the very open licenses is that ability to take
the entire library and bury it in another program without even a mention
of it being used. This gets back into the problem of distributing the
code vs distributing the final work, but I would prefer to see this
license keep the include free. I like the terms of the LGPL for this,
but I'm not sure it could be tuned to non-executable use.

Finally, I did some more digging into GNU licenses and found the GFDL,
Free Document License. It would take more reading but it might be
possible to use something like that, similar to published computer
books. "The text (and whole library) is licensed under GFDL, and code
snippets (individual items or functions) are free to use in other
programs without attribution."  I haven't had time to really read it
yet, so that might not be possible, but now I'm going to check some
O'Reilly books to see how they word code licenses.

Post a reply to this message