> Be sure to read the licensing for Lightflow, it may hold some
> surprises. I find that the most limiting aspect is that you are not
> free to do what you want with the images you render with it. They may
> not be sold or otherwise used for profit.


well spotted lutz!, you know we all just ignore the licence agreements (or
never read them!)

Rick

Post a reply to this message

hm, I did not find the lizence of lightflow, but on the webpage something
was written with "This trial product is completely free for non commercial
uses". ok you are right and this a difference to povray. But beside this:
do you (a real expert) think, a cooperation would be good ?
Certainly this lizense-term is a problem: but if both sides are
interessted, why not talking and solving this problem.

Beside this, I also found the passage:
"Lightflow Technologies will directly take care of the development of the
plugins for
Alias|Wavefront's Maya and Autodesk's 3D Studio MAX (which are already
under
construction), but it is open to any external cooperation for the support
of different
softwares"

What does this mean ?

Thanks
Jurek

Post a reply to this message

> well spotted lutz!, you know we all just ignore the licence agreements (or
> never read them!)
>
> Rick

You are right: I read my first lizense agreement 20 minutes ago, but I'm using
copyrighted software for 15 years :-)

Post a reply to this message

Lutz Kretzschmar wrote:

> Be sure to read the licensing for Lightflow, it may hold some
> surprises. I find that the most limiting aspect is that you are not
> free to do what you want with the images you render with it. They may
> not be sold or otherwise used for profit.
>

That sounds ridiculous, it is like a paint manufacturer saying that you
cannot sell your painting because you used their paint.
POVray and Moray are tops anyway.

--
  ,-._|\  Alex McMurray
 /  Oz  \ ale### [at] melbpcorgau               Melbourne PC User Group.
 \_,--.x/Melton. Vic.  3337                     Australia
       v

Post a reply to this message

Hi Alex McMurray, you recently wrote in povray.general:

> That sounds ridiculous, it is like a paint manufacturer saying that you
> cannot sell your painting because you used their paint.
Yup, I thought it was a rather strange limitation, even POV-Ray (which
is considered to have a restrictive license by the GPL crowd) allows
you to do what you want with the images you render. I was considering
supporting LightFlow in Moray, but with a license like that it doesn't
make sense...

- Lutz
  email : lut### [at] stmuccom
  Web   : http://www.stmuc.com/moray

Post a reply to this message

"Alex McMurray" <ale### [at] melbpcorgau> wrote in message
news:3961A95A.50CFFC73@melbpc.org.au...
> That sounds ridiculous, it is like a paint manufacturer saying that you
> cannot sell your painting because you used their paint.
> POVray and Moray are tops anyway.

I'd rather have free paint for my private paintings and pay for commercial
ones than having to pay for paint for all my paintings.
(But I still prefer to have free paint for everything)



Philippe

Post a reply to this message

It's more like the paintbrush than the paint but the principle does seem
ridiculous when put that way, e.g. would you buy a wrench that came with a
tag that said it was OK for personal use but if you used it to build a car,
then you couldn't ever sell the car.

On the other hand, since I wouldn't personally have any desire to sell or
profit from images then I will have a look at this. BTW if I produced
images and sold them but they were so bad that I made a loss rather than a
profit, would that be acceptable ?


Alex McMurray wrote:

> Lutz Kretzschmar wrote:
>
> > Be sure to read the licensing for Lightflow, it may hold some
> > surprises. I find that the most limiting aspect is that you are not
> > free to do what you want with the images you render with it. They may
> > not be sold or otherwise used for profit.
> >
>
> That sounds ridiculous, it is like a paint manufacturer saying that you
> cannot sell your painting because you used their paint.
> POVray and Moray are tops anyway.
>
> --
>   ,-._|\  Alex McMurray
>  /  Oz  \ ale### [at] melbpcorgau               Melbourne PC User Group.
>  \_,--.x/Melton. Vic.  3337                     Australia
>        v

Post a reply to this message

Or perhaps buying a kitchen knife with a notice that says that it is OK to use
it for domestic violence but not for contract killings.

Richard Morton wrote:

> It's more like the paintbrush than the paint but the principle does seem
> ridiculous when put that way, e.g. would you buy a wrench that came with a
> tag that said it was OK for personal use but if you used it to build a car,
> then you couldn't ever sell the car.
>

Post a reply to this message

I don't know about well spotted, you would have to have your eyes closed to
miss the licence agreement conditions. You can't download without reading the
agreement (which is quite short and clear) and agreeing to it's terms.

This seems a perfectly reasonable restriction to me because:
1) It allows the programmer to make money from his efforts if he decides to
license the software commercially, and those paying for the software have the
opportuinity to profit from it.
2) Those of us who cannot justify anything more than the cost of a magazine
cover CD can experience using quality software with no desire to profit from
it.

AOR (Awaits Outraged Responses).

Rick wrote:

> > Be sure to read the licensing for Lightflow, it may hold some
> > surprises. I find that the most limiting aspect is that you are not
> > free to do what you want with the images you render with it. They may
> > not be sold or otherwise used for profit.
>
> well spotted lutz!, you know we all just ignore the licence agreements (or
> never read them!)
>
> Rick

Post a reply to this message

In article <399### [at] hotmailremovethisbitcom>, Richard Morton 
<ric### [at] hotmailremovethisbitcom> wrote:

> It's more like the paintbrush than the paint but the principle does 
> seem ridiculous when put that way, e.g. would you buy a wrench that 
> came with a tag that said it was OK for personal use but if you used 
> it to build a car, then you couldn't ever sell the car.

I think it is more like being freely given a paintbrush which is a 
commercial product, but only being allowed to sell work done with the 
paintbrush if you buy it. It is perfectly reasonable, just seems a bit 
odd at first. Most companies just require everyone to pay...
At least, this is how I understand the license. I can't even try out the 
program, so I haven't really looked at it.

-- 
Christopher James Huff
Personal: e-mail chr### [at] maccom, Web page http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: e-mail chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, Web page http://tag.povray.org/

><>

Post a reply to this message