POV-Ray : Newsgroups : moray.win : Modernize Moray Server Time: 19 Dec 2018 07:05:59 GMT
  Modernize Moray (Message 1 to 10 of 10)  
From: Federico Aponte
Subject: Modernize Moray
Date: 3 Jan 2018 22:00:01
Message: <web.5a4d5144feaacd565db96ca40@news.povray.org>
I understand this question has been repeatedly asked in the past, but still...

*** Is there any way someone can bring development on Moray back to life? ***

I'd be willing to consider putting some effort into it. The aim would initially
be to use it with a modern version of Windows (and Wine, perhaps?),
registration-free and address its integration issues with the latest versions of
POV-Ray.

Fed


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: Modernize Moray
Date: 4 Jan 2018 09:59:30
Message: <5a4dfb02$1@news.povray.org>
Am 03.01.2018 um 22:55 schrieb Federico Aponte:
> I understand this question has been repeatedly asked in the past, but still...
> 
> *** Is there any way someone can bring development on Moray back to life? ***
> 
> I'd be willing to consider putting some effort into it. The aim would initially
> be to use it with a modern version of Windows (and Wine, perhaps?),
> registration-free and address its integration issues with the latest versions of
> POV-Ray.

In that case, the answer is, "probably yes".

The rights to Moray are currently owned by Persistence of Vision
Raytracer Pty. Ltd.; the only reason nothing has been done with the code
yet is lack of manpower.

So if you are willing to invest time and energy, the best course of
action is probably to put the source code up on GitHub and let you
tamper with it there.

We'll need to contact Chris Cason about this though, as Persistence of
Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd. is not identical to the POV-Ray dev team, so
I have no say in it. Also, it is my understanding that a few legal
hurdles need to be taken first:

- The software may have to be renamed (that was the original intention
at any rate).

- The software needs to be officially re-licensed unter the GPL (or some
other open source license).

- For the re-licensing to happen, some effort may have to be put into
weeding out 3rd party code that has incompatible licensing terms; such
pieces of code would have to be re-written from scratch before making
the code publicly available (such as on GitHub).


Post a reply to this message

From: Bald Eagle
Subject: Re: Modernize Moray
Date: 4 Jan 2018 14:20:01
Message: <web.5a4e379cc65f70195cafe28e0@news.povray.org>
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

> - For the re-licensing to happen, some effort may have to be put into
> weeding out 3rd party code that has incompatible licensing terms; such
> pieces of code would have to be re-written from scratch before making
> the code publicly available (such as on GitHub).

I have a few questions about this, as IP remains very gray and thorny for me.

There are instances where a work may be cited as an excerpt, may be used for
parody, etc.   Are there the same / similar  rules for code?
I believe there are, and I've read some somewhere, I'm just not intimately
familiar with the rules governing this area.

I'm SO just leaving it at that.

Second, might it not be expedient to identify the 3rd party snippets and just
stick in a placeholder comment?
// this performs an FFT
// this does some specialized calculation
// this is code for the well-known Dasblinkenlights algorithm...

Is it permissible to post links to online instances of any such code?

Is it permissible to supply self-encapsulated compiled code to act as a
black-box that a developer would need to emulate with their own from-scratch
source code?
For instance, run some code which passes data to that black-box module, which
then passes on processed data to a second set of code...

Can the 3rd party source be "paraphrased" as pseudo code?


I'm just thinking that getting it posted in ANY form would jump-start this, and
it would be FAR faster to give the 3rd party stuff a quick-and dirty
non-functional rewrite in one of the above forms, than actually replace it with
working code.


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: Modernize Moray
Date: 4 Jan 2018 17:41:04
Message: <5a4e6730$1@news.povray.org>
Am 04.01.2018 um 15:18 schrieb Bald Eagle:

> I have a few questions about this, as IP remains very gray and thorny for me.
> 
> There are instances where a work may be cited as an excerpt, may be used for
> parody, etc.   Are there the same / similar  rules for code?
> I believe there are, and I've read some somewhere, I'm just not intimately
> familiar with the rules governing this area.

I bet there's no universally true answer to this question. IP laws
differ a lot between countries, and software may or may not get special
treatment there.

> Second, might it not be expedient to identify the 3rd party snippets and just
> stick in a placeholder comment?
> // this performs an FFT
> // this does some specialized calculation
> // this is code for the well-known Dasblinkenlights algorithm...

That depends on the license under which the original authors of Moray
used such code. Any publication of software (not only in binary form,
but also as source code) requires the copyright holder's permission
(that is, a license); so if the 3rd party did not explicitly allow
publication of their source code, that's not an option.

> Is it permissible to post links to online instances of any such code?

Yes, absolutely -- provided that online instance already constitutes a
publicly accessible copy of that code and is legit (i.e. the "owner" of
that instance has the right to make it publicly available).

> Is it permissible to supply self-encapsulated compiled code to act as a
> black-box that a developer would need to emulate with their own from-scratch
> source code?
> For instance, run some code which passes data to that black-box module, which
> then passes on processed data to a second set of code...

That also depends on the license. By default (i.e. if in doubt), the
answer would be "no".

> Can the 3rd party source be "paraphrased" as pseudo code?

Yes. Unless you live in a country where algorithms /per se/ (as opposed
to implementations thereof) can be subject to copyright. (Dunno if there
are any such countries at all, but they could theoretically exist.)

> I'm just thinking that getting it posted in ANY form would jump-start this, and
> it would be FAR faster to give the 3rd party stuff a quick-and dirty
> non-functional rewrite in one of the above forms, than actually replace it with
> working code.

Actually, the first step would have to be taking inventory: What 3rd
party pieces of code actually do exist at all, and how extensive are
they. Only then does it make sense to discuss how to best tackle the
issue -- if it is any at all. It might turn out that there isn't any 3rd
party code at all, or that all 3rd party code is free software anyway.

Right now, all I'm saying is that this /can/ be a problem, and that for
now the code has to be treated as if it /is/ a problem, until the
contrary has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.


Post a reply to this message

From: Federico Aponte
Subject: Re: Modernize Moray
Date: 5 Jan 2018 18:00:00
Message: <web.5a4fbc6fc65f7019c156079d0@news.povray.org>
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 04.01.2018 um 15:18 schrieb Bald Eagle:
>
> > I have a few questions about this, as IP remains very gray and thorny for me.
> >
> > There are instances where a work may be cited as an excerpt, may be used for
> > parody, etc.   Are there the same / similar  rules for code?
> > I believe there are, and I've read some somewhere, I'm just not intimately
> > familiar with the rules governing this area.
>
> I bet there's no universally true answer to this question. IP laws
> differ a lot between countries, and software may or may not get special
> treatment there.
>
> > Second, might it not be expedient to identify the 3rd party snippets and just
> > stick in a placeholder comment?
> > // this performs an FFT
> > // this does some specialized calculation
> > // this is code for the well-known Dasblinkenlights algorithm...
>
> That depends on the license under which the original authors of Moray
> used such code. Any publication of software (not only in binary form,
> but also as source code) requires the copyright holder's permission
> (that is, a license); so if the 3rd party did not explicitly allow
> publication of their source code, that's not an option.
>
> > Is it permissible to post links to online instances of any such code?
>
> Yes, absolutely -- provided that online instance already constitutes a
> publicly accessible copy of that code and is legit (i.e. the "owner" of
> that instance has the right to make it publicly available).
>
> > Is it permissible to supply self-encapsulated compiled code to act as a
> > black-box that a developer would need to emulate with their own from-scratch
> > source code?
> > For instance, run some code which passes data to that black-box module, which
> > then passes on processed data to a second set of code...
>
> That also depends on the license. By default (i.e. if in doubt), the
> answer would be "no".
>
> > Can the 3rd party source be "paraphrased" as pseudo code?
>
> Yes. Unless you live in a country where algorithms /per se/ (as opposed
> to implementations thereof) can be subject to copyright. (Dunno if there
> are any such countries at all, but they could theoretically exist.)
>
> > I'm just thinking that getting it posted in ANY form would jump-start this, and
> > it would be FAR faster to give the 3rd party stuff a quick-and dirty
> > non-functional rewrite in one of the above forms, than actually replace it with
> > working code.
>
> Actually, the first step would have to be taking inventory: What 3rd
> party pieces of code actually do exist at all, and how extensive are
> they. Only then does it make sense to discuss how to best tackle the
> issue -- if it is any at all. It might turn out that there isn't any 3rd
> party code at all, or that all 3rd party code is free software anyway.
>
> Right now, all I'm saying is that this /can/ be a problem, and that for
> now the code has to be treated as if it /is/ a problem, until the
> contrary has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Thank you for the information so quickly provided.
I am still willing to get involved in the project and can make this inventory of
3rd party libraries used within Moray. The outcome of that is valuable
information for me to understand the complexity of the project for a single
developer.
Could you please advise how I can best proceed from here?

Fed


Post a reply to this message

From: Convinced
Subject: Re: Modernize Moray
Date: 12 Jan 2018 17:15:02
Message: <web.5a58ec87c65f7019c148b6050@news.povray.org>
"Federico Aponte" <fed### [at] liberoit> wrote:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Am 04.01.2018 um 15:18 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> >
> > > I have a few questions about this, as IP remains very gray and thorny for me.
> > >
> > > There are instances where a work may be cited as an excerpt, may be used for
> > > parody, etc.   Are there the same / similar  rules for code?
> > > I believe there are, and I've read some somewhere, I'm just not intimately
> > > familiar with the rules governing this area.
> >
> > I bet there's no universally true answer to this question. IP laws
> > differ a lot between countries, and software may or may not get special
> > treatment there.
> >
> > > Second, might it not be expedient to identify the 3rd party snippets and just
> > > stick in a placeholder comment?
> > > // this performs an FFT
> > > // this does some specialized calculation
> > > // this is code for the well-known Dasblinkenlights algorithm...
> >
> > That depends on the license under which the original authors of Moray
> > used such code. Any publication of software (not only in binary form,
> > but also as source code) requires the copyright holder's permission
> > (that is, a license); so if the 3rd party did not explicitly allow
> > publication of their source code, that's not an option.
> >
> > > Is it permissible to post links to online instances of any such code?
> >
> > Yes, absolutely -- provided that online instance already constitutes a
> > publicly accessible copy of that code and is legit (i.e. the "owner" of
> > that instance has the right to make it publicly available).
> >
> > > Is it permissible to supply self-encapsulated compiled code to act as a
> > > black-box that a developer would need to emulate with their own from-scratch
> > > source code?
> > > For instance, run some code which passes data to that black-box module, which
> > > then passes on processed data to a second set of code...
> >
> > That also depends on the license. By default (i.e. if in doubt), the
> > answer would be "no".
> >
> > > Can the 3rd party source be "paraphrased" as pseudo code?
> >
> > Yes. Unless you live in a country where algorithms /per se/ (as opposed
> > to implementations thereof) can be subject to copyright. (Dunno if there
> > are any such countries at all, but they could theoretically exist.)
> >
> > > I'm just thinking that getting it posted in ANY form would jump-start this, and
> > > it would be FAR faster to give the 3rd party stuff a quick-and dirty
> > > non-functional rewrite in one of the above forms, than actually replace it with
> > > working code.
> >
> > Actually, the first step would have to be taking inventory: What 3rd
> > party pieces of code actually do exist at all, and how extensive are
> > they. Only then does it make sense to discuss how to best tackle the
> > issue -- if it is any at all. It might turn out that there isn't any 3rd
> > party code at all, or that all 3rd party code is free software anyway.
> >
> > Right now, all I'm saying is that this /can/ be a problem, and that for
> > now the code has to be treated as if it /is/ a problem, until the
> > contrary has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
>
> Thank you for the information so quickly provided.
> I am still willing to get involved in the project and can make this inventory of
> 3rd party libraries used within Moray. The outcome of that is valuable
> information for me to understand the complexity of the project for a single
> developer.
> Could you please advise how I can best proceed from here?
>
> Fed

My question is WHEN! is anybody going to do anything about it?
There seems to be a lack of interest generally. This has been going on for
years. Povray needs a good 3D modeller. Moray was that modeller.
Why does someone simply ask the author. Lutz, what code is 3rd party.


Post a reply to this message

From: Lutz
Subject: Re: Modernize Moray
Date: 29 Jan 2018 17:55:00
Message: <web.5a6f5edec65f7019680725ff0@news.povray.org>
> My question is WHEN! is anybody going to do anything about it?
> There seems to be a lack of interest generally. This has been going on for
> years. Povray needs a good 3D modeller. Moray was that modeller.
> Why does someone simply ask the author. Lutz, what code is 3rd party.

Initially, there was an interface library called BCGWin (I think), but that has
been removed for the most part. I don't think there are any other 3rd party
libraries that we used (it's been years I checked).
I believe the biggest missing chunk at the moment is integration with POV-Ray
3.7 and beyond.

I still use Moray quite regularly for 3D printing parts design (I wrote an STL
import/export plugin) and have solved some of the other issues it had on Win 10
(mainly OpenGL glitching).

I think we will see some effort on this front shortly, I've indicated to Chris
that I'm willing to help with getting a updated version done.

- Lutz


Post a reply to this message

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Modernize Moray
Date: 30 Jan 2018 08:04:52
Message: <5a702724$1@news.povray.org>
On 29-1-2018 18:50, Lutz wrote:
>> My question is WHEN! is anybody going to do anything about it?
>> There seems to be a lack of interest generally. This has been going on for
>> years. Povray needs a good 3D modeller. Moray was that modeller.
>> Why does someone simply ask the author. Lutz, what code is 3rd party.
> 
> Initially, there was an interface library called BCGWin (I think), but that has
> been removed for the most part. I don't think there are any other 3rd party
> libraries that we used (it's been years I checked).
> I believe the biggest missing chunk at the moment is integration with POV-Ray
> 3.7 and beyond.
> 
> I still use Moray quite regularly for 3D printing parts design (I wrote an STL
> import/export plugin) and have solved some of the other issues it had on Win 10
> (mainly OpenGL glitching).
> 
> I think we will see some effort on this front shortly, I've indicated to Chris
> that I'm willing to help with getting a updated version done.
> 
> - Lutz

Lutz, that is good news indeed. For old times sake I am strongly 
interested, even if I do most of my modelling in meshes nowadays. Moray 
had that subtle flavour... :-)


-- 
Thomas


Post a reply to this message

From: Lutz
Subject: Re: Modernize Moray
Date: 31 Jan 2018 03:30:00
Message: <web.5a713735c65f7019b40666f40@news.povray.org>
Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> Lutz, that is good news indeed. For old times sake I am strongly
> interested, even if I do most of my modelling in meshes nowadays. Moray
> had that subtle flavour... :-)
Yeah, I have only been using the mesh editor in Moray for the last decade or so
:-). I've tried some other modelling packages to make 3D models, but I just know
Moray's mesh editor so well, it's way easier to get what I want.

- Lutz


Post a reply to this message

From: simbad
Subject: Re: Modernize Moray
Date: 30 May 2018 06:35:01
Message: <web.5b0e45b5c65f70196392a00e0@news.povray.org>
Hi,

i am interested in some sort of modeller for povray as well. Sad to say that I
have only very limited time to help on coding. But who knows if the source gets
available I may look at it :)

Anyway I use linux for rendering, having some sort of modeller run in wine would
be a good thing.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2008 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.