 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Charles Fusner wrote:
>
> 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?
One (like me for example) might argue that while the programming
language might change many of the algorithms the the current code
is based on will remain functionally the same.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:43:41 +0200, "Johannes Hubert" <jht### [at] maila com>
wrote:
>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.
As far as I understand the GNU license, it doesn't prohibit people to
make money of a product covered by the license, and it was never the
idea behind it either.
This is borrowed from www.gnu.org:
************************************************************************
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the
concept, you should think of "free speech", not "free beer."
"Free software" refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to
four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access
to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus,
you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other
things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
************************************************************************
Sven-Erik Andersen
----
sve### [at] andersenas
sea### [at] mailcitycom
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Program/2549/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> One (like me for example) might argue that while the programming
> language might change many of the algorithms the the current code
> is based on will remain functionally the same.
Heh. OK, Ken, just trying to stir up trouble, I was. (Hey, you're
a bad influence, what can I say <g>), but what's the difference
between, say, using the original source only as a functionality
and compatibility reference and effectively rebuilding the functions
and data structures as full fledged classes, and, using the source
for "educational purposes" in writing your own library functions.
For example, the POV parser that someone wrote: In order to comply
with POV-Legal as it currently stands, this parser had to have
been written from the ground up, but it still reads POV source code
so how different is it practically speaking from the native POV
parsing code?
If the team, with full knowledge of POV's inner workings sat down
and rebuilt the raytracer such that it's native language and
available functions were backward compatible with the existing
executables, yet the code were completely reworked internally,
how many shades of grey must we cross before it isn't the same
code any more? Or have we opened the whole LZW "patent on an
algorythm" can o' worms again?
Sorry, I'm a trouble maker, I know. Per'aps I should jest shut
up and sit in a corner mind me own business...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:11:05 +0200, 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.
Why? If I would contribute some code to POV, I would be more than happy
if my code shows up in other Open Source projects, too. OTOH, if I
contributed something to POV, I would find it only fair if I could use
parts of POV in my other projects.
> That's why most common open-stuff license (GNU,...) aren't
>applicable as-is to POV-Ray.
The GPL is quite good at ensuring that nothing that was ever under the
GPL could ever be "un-GPLed". If povray was under the GPL, yes, somebody
could incorporate the povray parser into a modeller or
povray-to-xml-converter or whatever. But their code would be under the
GPL, too, so if you can use some of the code, you could just incorporate
it into povray.
> Remember that pov is "copyrighted freeware",
RMS would debate the term "freeware" here :-) and GPL software is
copyrighted, too.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:45:10 GMT, Sven-Erik Andersen wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:43:41 +0200, "Johannes Hubert" <jht### [at] mailacom>
>wrote:
>>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.
>
>As far as I understand the GNU license, it doesn't prohibit people to
>make money of a product covered by the license, and it was never the
>idea behind it either.
This is correct. However, since you cannot keep anyone from distributing
a GPL'ed program, you cannot make make money by selling the program
itself. If you sell the program for $1000, somebody will just burn it on
1000 CDs and sell them for $10 each. You can, however, make money by
distributing the software ("POVray + printed manual for only $29"),
by giving support ("Problems with POVray? You can call us 24x7 for only
$1000 per month"), or by improving it ("You need NURBS and you need them
next month? We'll implement them for only $10000").
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
> This is correct. However, since you cannot keep anyone from distributing
> a GPL'ed program, you cannot make make money by selling the program
> itself. If you sell the program for $1000, somebody will just burn it on
> 1000 CDs and sell them for $10 each. You can, however, make money by
> distributing the software ("POVray + printed manual for only $29"),
> by giving support ("Problems with POVray? You can call us 24x7 for only
> $1000 per month"), or by improving it ("You need NURBS and you need them
> next month? We'll implement them for only $10000").
And think of the customer service problems this creates for the current
developers of POV-Ray. Someone gets a modified version of the program
and finds bugs in it. They discover povray.org on the net and fire off
a bug report. The POV-Team has to take the time to inform this person
that they do not support that particualar version of POV-Ray. The POV-Team
has better things to do with their free time than to deal with hassles
like this. Then there is the issue that someone else can make money
from their hard work without any responsibility to compensate them for
it. Is that fair ? GPL may work for some people or organizations but
the POV-Team has adopted the current licensing restricions for reasons
that suit the way they are structured and operate.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> And think of the customer service problems this creates for the current
> developers of POV-Ray. Someone gets a modified version of the program
> and finds bugs in it. They discover povray.org on the net and fire off
> a bug report.
Actually, that's still a probable scenario with the current custom patches. Of
course a GPL-ed program is likely to generate more numerous and varied
spin-offs.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sven-Erik Andersen" <sea### [at] mailcitycom> wrote in message
news:390610ba.655322513@204.213.191.228...
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:43:41 +0200, "Johannes Hubert" <jht### [at] mailacom>
> wrote:
> >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.
>
> As far as I understand the GNU license, it doesn't prohibit people to
> make money of a product covered by the license, and it was never the
> idea behind it either.
Well yes, but nobody would stop them from writing their license like
GNU, just with the added "if you use our code for your application, then
you must distribute the application for *free*, and you must distribute
it with full source code, and you must provide your own support to the
users, etc. etc."
This is more or less like it is now, with the difference, that now you
can only use their code to write a custom version of POV-Ray, with this
more general license, you could use (parts) of their code in other (free
and open source) applications.
Johannes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:10:46 -0700, Ken wrote:
>
>"Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>
>> This is correct. However, since you cannot keep anyone from
>> distributing a GPL'ed program, you cannot make make money by selling
>> the program itself. If you sell the program for $1000, somebody
>> will just burn it on 1000 CDs and sell them for $10 each. You can,
>> however, make money by distributing the software ("POVray + printed
>> manual for only $29"), by giving support ("Problems with POVray? You
>> can call us 24x7 for only $1000 per month"), or by improving it ("You
>> need NURBS and you need them next month? We'll implement them for
>> only $10000").
>
>And think of the customer service problems this creates for the current
>developers of POV-Ray. Someone gets a modified version of the program
>and finds bugs in it. They discover povray.org on the net and fire off
>a bug report.
This doesn't seem to be much of a problem for most GPL software. Patches
usually either get merged back into the main source pretty quickly or
stay obscure. Source splits are rare, but when they happen (Emacs vs.
XEmacs, gcc vs. egcs vs. pgcc) it is usually quite clear that the
programs have different maintainers. Also note that the POV license
doesn't forbid to distribute modified versions of POVray, so this could
happen anyway (yes, I know the "This is an unofficial version of povray"
message).
Of course you can choose to license your program under whatever
conditions you like. I am just wondering why you feel that the GPL isn't
suitable, given that it has worked well for a lot of people for at least
15 years or so.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3904D590.D3273C27@pacbell.net...
> One (like me for example) might argue that while the programming
> language might change many of the algorithms the the current code
> is based on will remain functionally the same.
But then another (like me for example) may argue (purely for the sake of
doing so) like a black wildebeest that no-one should be able to own or
control the use of algorithms.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
