 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff <chr### [at] yahoo com> wrote...
>
> Why? What benefits would it have? What problems with the current license
> would be solved by changing it?
> The license definitely won't be changed if that is the only reason you
> can come up with. I don't think any of the POV-Team members(or anyone at
> all) would enjoy spending their free time writing a new license or
> moving POV to a new one "just for the heck of it".
As you mention, the license shouldn't be changed 'just for the heck of it'.
However, there are some benifits (and drawbacks) of alternative licenses.
These issues will have to be discussed more in depth before further action
is taken, and currently a lot of time is being spent on the release of POV
3.5, so not much time is available for license discussions.
-Nathan Kopp
(I speak for myself alone and not for the POV-Team.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:40:19 -0500, David Fontaine wrote:
>Warp wrote:
>
>> If I remember right, the first Unix operating system was developed in
>> the 60's from a bigger OS called Multix (DOS was [reverse engineered] in 79 or
>> 80).
>
>*cough*
Cough, indeed. DOS wasn't reverse engineered, it was written from scratch
with the intent of being backward compatible with CP/M. It just wasn't
written by Herr Gates as he likes to claim.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff_99-3A920E.21045423042000@news.povray.org...
> In article <3902F90D.D98B5AA5@crosswinds.net>, Rene Horn
> <haw### [at] crosswindsnet> wrote:
>
> > I know, I just think that it's maybe a time for a change. I realize
that
> > POV-Ray is older and my hope in posting this is that the creators
might
> > think about that.
>
> Why? What benefits would it have? What problems with the current
license
> would be solved by changing it?
> The license definitely won't be changed if that is the only reason you
> can come up with. I don't think any of the POV-Team members(or anyone
at
> all) would enjoy spending their free time writing a new license or
> moving POV to a new one "just for the heck of it".
One reason that jumps to mind:
If POV had a GNU license, you could take out parts of POV's code and
integrate it into your own projects, as long as you distributed your
application with the GNU license (and for free) too.
This would help a lot of people that would like to integrate POV's
parsing code into for example a modeller, which could then "read" POV
files.
The POV team would insofar loose its control over the applications into
which their code is integrated, but it would not allow anyone to make
money with the POV code, because the new product would also have to use
the GNU license.
Johannes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rene Horn <haw### [at] crosswindsnet> wrote in message
news:390### [at] crosswindsnet...
> I'm wondering why the POV license doesn't conform to the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines)
> or Open Source Definition (it's basically the same thing). Why do they
> not modify the license to make it conform and so then people would know
> that is for sure free (I think that $0.08 thing is pretty stupid, but I
> know there is more than just that that does not conform.
>
> ndogg
> haw### [at] crosswindsnet
> http://ndogg.n3.net
>
I already ask similar questions about one year ago and I had been subject to
a nice cyber etnic cleansing!!!
I you want something else, check GNU Panorama project.
Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit
www.geocities.com/alexcoppo/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 20:20:35 -0500, Rene Horn wrote:
>I'm wondering why the POV license doesn't conform to the Debian Free
>Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines)
>or Open Source Definition (it's basically the same thing). Why do they
>not modify the license to make it conform and so then people would know
>that is for sure free (I think that $0.08 thing is pretty stupid, but I
>know there is more than just that that does not conform.
Never read the license, I'm too busy raytracing.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:50pm up 4 days, 1:07, 3 users, load average: 1.30, 1.20, 1.16
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 00:50:44 +1000, Lance Birch wrote:
>Bill DeWitt wrote:
>> I can't stop, it's like Disco fever...
>
>I was just in a router called Disco... *insert spooky coincidence music
>here*
My pov stuff comes over through a router called Disco sometimes, I think
it's in DC if I remember correctly.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:50pm up 4 days, 1:07, 3 users, load average: 1.30, 1.20, 1.16
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:22:21 -0500, Rene Horn wrote:
>
>I know, I just think that it's maybe a time for a change. I realize that
>POV-Ray is older and my hope in posting this is that the creators might think
>about that.
>
This thread reminds me of when I was a student, people used to ask me why
I didn't have a TV license (it's ilegal not to have one here in the UK),
my answer was always that the TV works perfectly without one.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:50pm up 4 days, 1:07, 3 users, load average: 1.30, 1.20, 1.16
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> Cough, indeed. DOS wasn't reverse engineered, it was written from scratch
> with the intent of being backward compatible with CP/M. It just wasn't
> written by Herr Gates as he likes to claim.
Well, I haven't heard that version, but I'll believe it. Still, though, if it wasn't
written by Gates as he likes to claim...
Kinda like when the transistor was stolen by what's-his-name's research partners...
--
___ _______________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
> Never read the license, I'm too busy raytracing.
Yup!
--
___ _______________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien Mosen wrote:
> Some of the (numerous) authors of some parts of the POV code
> want to be assured that their (hard) work won't be reincorporated
> in something else without their consent.
>
> That's why most common open-stuff license (GNU,...) aren't
> applicable as-is to POV-Ray.
Quite so. That was always my understanding. Now for the 25 cent
question: If 4.0 were a complete rebuild in C++ (or whatever
language) wouldn't this mean that the current team members alone
would be able to decide what (if any) changes should go into the
new license from that point onward?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
