John Coppens <joh### [at] johncoppenscom> wrote:
> Hello people.
>
> Wanted to redo a file from a few days ago, and I get:
>
> $ povray1 +Iglass.pov
> povray: this pre-release version of POV-Ray for Unix expires in 6 day(s)
> and 8 hour(s)
> povray: cannot open the system configuration
> file /usr/local/etc/povray/3.7/povray.conf: No such file or directory
> Unknown error code
> $
>
> This is beta34, started up with the numeric code. Is there a cross-over
> problem with the year?
>
> John

Hi John,
I have similar problem with beta 34 on Linux - Slackware 12.2 x86.

povray +FT -D +Q9 +A st546.pov
povray: this pre-release version of POV-Ray for Unix expires in 6 day(s) and 4
hour(s)
povray: /home/dad/.povray/3.7/povray.conf: 57: the user setting 'allowed' for
[Shellout Security] is less restrictive than the system 'forbidden' setting in
'/usr/local/etc/povray/3.7/povray.conf': using system setting
Unknown error code

Hope a guru can provide a fix.

Cheers,
Peter

Post a reply to this message

"geep999" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> John Coppens <joh### [at] johncoppenscom> wrote:
> > Hello people.
> >
> > Wanted to redo a file from a few days ago, and I get:
> >
> > $ povray1 +Iglass.pov
> > povray: this pre-release version of POV-Ray for Unix expires in 6 day(s)
> > and 8 hour(s)
> > povray: cannot open the system configuration
> > file /usr/local/etc/povray/3.7/povray.conf: No such file or directory
> > Unknown error code
> > $
> >
> > This is beta34, started up with the numeric code. Is there a cross-over
> > problem with the year?
> >
> > John
>
> Hi John,
> I have similar problem with beta 34 on Linux - Slackware 12.2 x86.
>
> povray +FT -D +Q9 +A st546.pov
> povray: this pre-release version of POV-Ray for Unix expires in 6 day(s) and 4
> hour(s)
> povray: /home/dad/.povray/3.7/povray.conf: 57: the user setting 'allowed' for
> [Shellout Security] is less restrictive than the system 'forbidden' setting in
> '/usr/local/etc/povray/3.7/povray.conf': using system setting
> Unknown error code
>
> Hope a guru can provide a fix.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter

Hi - I've found the fix. Seems there was a similar problem in Jan 2009.
In vfe/vfe.cpp line 772.
Change 1262296800 (1 Jan 2010) to something like 2262296800 (9 Sep 2041)
And recompile...
Cheers,
Peter

Post a reply to this message

On Fri,  1 Jan 2010 13:38:29 EST
"geep999" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> Change 1262296800 (1 Jan 2010) to something like 2262296800 (9 Sep 2041)
> And recompile...
> Cheers,
> Peter

Thanks Peter.

I just threw out those 3 lines (same as in a patch I found for Debian)...

John

Post a reply to this message

John Coppens wrote:
> I just threw out those 3 lines (same as in a patch I found for Debian)...

Patch for Debian? Do you mean 3.7 is packaged for Debian?

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> John Coppens wrote:
>> I just threw out those 3 lines (same as in a patch I found for Debian)...
> 
> Patch for Debian? Do you mean 3.7 is packaged for Debian?

It is:
http://packages.debian.org/experimental/povray

And indeed it gets patched to remove the expiration.

Doesn't this violate the POV-Ray beta restrictions in every possible way? 
I'll consult debian-legal, but I'd like an "opinion" from the POV-Team 
first.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:35:36 -0300
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

> And indeed it gets patched to remove the expiration.
> 
> Doesn't this violate the POV-Ray beta restrictions in every possible
> way? I'll consult debian-legal, but I'd like an "opinion" from the
> POV-Team first.

If I'm not mistaken, the expiration is still there. Only the explicit
year 2010 has been removed. The patch set does 4 things, the only one
related removes that limit, so you can go past 1/1/2010 by using the
betacode.

John

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> John Coppens wrote:
>>> I just threw out those 3 lines (same as in a patch I found for
>>> Debian)...
>> 
>> Patch for Debian? Do you mean 3.7 is packaged for Debian?
> 
> It is:
> http://packages.debian.org/experimental/povray
> 
> And indeed it gets patched to remove the expiration.
> 
> Doesn't this violate the POV-Ray beta restrictions in every possible way?
> I'll consult debian-legal, but I'd like an "opinion" from the POV-Team
> first.

I have now reported it to debian-legal and to the Debian bugtracker:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=563344

Post a reply to this message

On 3/01/2010 7:14 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> John Coppens wrote:
>>>> I just threw out those 3 lines (same as in a patch I found for
>>>> Debian)...
>>> 
>>> Patch for Debian? Do you mean 3.7 is packaged for Debian?
>> 
>> It is:
>> http://packages.debian.org/experimental/povray
>> 
>> And indeed it gets patched to remove the expiration.
>> 
>> Doesn't this violate the POV-Ray beta restrictions in every possible way?
>> I'll consult debian-legal, but I'd like an "opinion" from the POV-Team
>> first.
> 
> I have now reported it to debian-legal and to the Debian bugtracker:
> 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=563344
> 

If they follow the source modification instructions on the source download
page then I'd probably be OK with it.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> On 3/01/2010 7:14 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> It is:
>>> http://packages.debian.org/experimental/povray
>>> 
>>> And indeed it gets patched to remove the expiration.
>>> 
>>> Doesn't this violate the POV-Ray beta restrictions in every possible
>>> way? I'll consult debian-legal, but I'd like an "opinion" from the
>>> POV-Team first.
>> 
>> I have now reported it to debian-legal and to the Debian bugtracker:
>> 
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=563344
>> 
> If they follow the source modification instructions on the source download
> page then I'd probably be OK with it.

I'm sure you'll have to be more specific/formal for it to matter; pretend 
you're talking to a lawyer :)

What source modification instructions on what page? That modifications have 
to be dual-licensed with GPL3? That's the only relevant "instruction" I 
found on the webpages.

OK with what? With them redistributing POV betas? OK with distributing 
source code too? OK with disabling the hard-limit on beta expiration?

Post a reply to this message

On 5/01/2010 2:21 PM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Chris Cason wrote:
>> On 3/01/2010 7:14 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>>> It is:
>>>> http://packages.debian.org/experimental/povray
>>>> 
>>>> And indeed it gets patched to remove the expiration.
>>>> 
>>>> Doesn't this violate the POV-Ray beta restrictions in every possible
>>>> way? I'll consult debian-legal, but I'd like an "opinion" from the
>>>> POV-Team first.
>>> 
>>> I have now reported it to debian-legal and to the Debian bugtracker:
>>> 
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=563344
>>> 
>> If they follow the source modification instructions on the source download
>> page then I'd probably be OK with it.
> 
> I'm sure you'll have to be more specific/formal for it to matter; pretend 
> you're talking to a lawyer :)
> 
> What source modification instructions on what page? That modifications have 
> to be dual-licensed with GPL3? That's the only relevant "instruction" I 
> found on the webpages.
> 
> OK with what? With them redistributing POV betas? OK with distributing 
> source code too? OK with disabling the hard-limit on beta expiration?
> 

I guess what I mean is that if they did formally request permission I'd be
prepared to consider it, depending on how they're doing it.

Post a reply to this message