"Alessandro Coppo" <a.c### [at] iolit> wrote in <3a68de3d$1@news.povray.org>:

>
>David Buck wrote in message <3A6### [at] simberoncom>...
>>These days, I'm working as a Smalltalk consultant.  (Did you know that
>>DKBTrace and POV-Ray had some Smalltalk concepts built into them?)
>
>Looking at the code I saw that it is just a few days work from becoming a
>complete C++ source. By the way, had not POV one of the most
>anti-free-software licenses I ever saw (barring commercial software), I
>would gladly do this job myself.
>
>Alessandro Coppo
>a.c### [at] iolit
>
>P.S.: a GREAT thank you for having started all this!
>
>
>
>

I agree that the PovRay license is currently inadequate.  In fact, I think 
their whole software development philosophy is counter-productive... If 
they would just OpenSource it like most other free projects out there, and 
allow an open development process (similar to Linux), we wouldn't have to 
all be sitting here waiting in the dark for the next release.  Of coarse, I 
shouldn't be complaining, considering that PovRay is just plain awesome, 
but sometimes I get frustrated.  Just my 2 cents.

Hookflash

Post a reply to this message

> > These days, I'm working as a Smalltalk consultant.  (Did you know that
> > DKBTrace and POV-Ray had some Smalltalk concepts built into them?)
>
> I'd noticed some OOP stuff in the code, the object methods for instance.
> Or were you speaking of the scene language?
> I'm currently learning Objective C, an OOP extended version of C which
> apparently borrowed most of it's concepts from Smalltalk.

I was referring to the method table dispatch to make different objects work
the same way.  It was a technique I learned in Smalltalk in 1984.

> > I'm also working hard on a commercial program which is a fun physics
> > simulation package for kids.  You can see a preview of the screen on
> > http://www.simberon.com.  I hope to have a public beta soon and a
> > release in a few months.
>
> Sounds interesting, though there isn't much info on the page...
> I suppose you'll want to finish the program first, though. ;-)

Yeah, the web page isn't very good unless there's a program to go with it.
I'll let you know when the beta is available.

David Buck
dav### [at] simberoncom

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch wrote:

> Ah... old POVers never die, they just trace at 0 pps...
>
> :)
>
> Welcome back David!  :D

Oh great, I just realized, we have yet another David here now. >;)

--
David Fontaine  <dav### [at] faricynet>  ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery:  http://davidf.faricy.net/

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:

> Well, no...actually, I have no idea what you are talking about, aside
> from the arrangement of a camera looking at it's own output.

Well, I've never seen the examples in the books, but I have seen a video
feedback loop.  Pretty psychedelic :)  Unfortunately, POVray works in an
"ideal" universe, in which such things as feedback noise don't have an effect.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On 19 Jan 2001 21:37:22 -0500, hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash)
wrote:

>I agree that the PovRay license is currently inadequate.

No it is not. A lot of the code in POV-Ray has been donated by
individuals for the sole purpose of being used in POV-Ray. Many of
them cannot be reached now (for example Pascal Massimino, author of
the julia code). Their copyrights have to be protected so the license
clearly states that a) you can tweak all you want at home and b) you
have to keep POV-Ray being POV-Ray, i.e. you can't just extract the
parser and plug it into your own tracer, for example.

>In fact, I think their whole software development philosophy is 
>counter-productive... 

An opinion which is wholly outweighed by the number of patches people
have been writing. Were it not for the numerous patch writers and
especially Ron Parker and Nathan Kopp, POV would have never reached
the heights that it now stands on. And it is because of the
availability of the source that all this is possible.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:45:01 -0500, David Buck wrote...
> Hi all.  I just found this newsgroup recently and I'm amazed at all the
> traffic on it.  It seems that POV-Ray has come a long way form it's
> humble beginnings back in '85 or so.  I'm the author of DKBTrace which,
> you may know, is the predecessor of POV-Ray.  I offered the DKBTrace
> source to the POV-Ray team as a base system and I served on the POV-Ray
> team for about two years.
> 
> What exciting things are happening these days in the POV-Ray world?  I'm
> seeing some amazing things posted on the net.

Congratulations, you're responsible for the single most long lived piece 
of software on my computer.  By that, I mean it's been installed on every 
system I've owned since about 1993 when I had a 486DX2/66 with 4 Megs of 
Ram...  (the fact that I've now got more RAM in my system than I had HDD 
space in my first system is beside the point :)

Bye for now,
     Jamie.

Post a reply to this message

In article <3A6### [at] hotmailcom>, Ben Chambers 
<bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> Well, I've never seen the examples in the books, but I have seen a video
> feedback loop.  Pretty psychedelic :)  Unfortunately, POVray works in an
> "ideal" universe, in which such things as feedback noise don't have an 
> effect.

Hint: you can turbulate (and apply other warps to) portals. :-)

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

<><

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote in message ...
>On 19 Jan 2001 21:37:22 -0500, hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash)
>wrote:
>
>>I agree that the PovRay license is currently inadequate.
>
>No it is not.

Just an example: may I study the source and the algorithms and use this
knowledge indipendently? Some are documented in books like Foley/VanDam etc.
so in fact you can only quarrel about the actual code (or we have to start
talking about prior art instead of raytraced art?)

If the license is not going to switch to an OSI (Open Source Initiative)
approved one (there are 20+ if I remember well, so you (PovTeam members) can
easily find one that suits you).... well, with new versions coming out at ~3
years interval (glacial rate for OpenSource projects), and the current POV
license I am tempted not to find alternatives (can you spell Ray++ (LGPL) or
Panorama (GPL) or Raja (GPL)?), but to write them. This is not an empty
threat. I am currently working at a Java tool which completely (well, in the
future ;-)) maps POV language and can emit it, becoming the core for a
super-macro engine (describe your scene in Java + all libraries you need
plus all the power of Java and then just tell it to emit #macro-less pov
code to be rendered by POV or MegaPOV, may be even driving the command line
version of the engine). In a few days work I have created a working
prototype which I want to refine before releasing. Given the knowledge about
raytracing I have gathered from references, I think I might even have a
partial POV-clone on air before Christmas... which is something which tempts
me much if the license is so adequate... (and if you say Java is slow, well
I have experience of very fast ports from Java to C++ at the rate of several
classes per day).

I really (and I am sure there are many other people like me) would like to
cooperate DIRECTLY to POVRay and not creat YACRC (yet another clean room
clone), but NOT at the current conditions.

Well, it was said a few months ago on this newsserver that this was a
post-3.5 subject and this is just a preview of my thoughts. I hope that this
is not the start of a war because it is done with the most constructive
frame of mind (I am a developer, not a lawyer or a troll).

Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit

P.S.: I have an idea: if you received POV-only contributions which tie you
to the current license, what stops you (I would like to say us!) to create a
clean-room pov-clone without these contributions? For example, MegaPOV
simple dropped GIFs when licensing become unbearable.

Bye bye!!!!

Post a reply to this message

In article <Xns902EBD2AFBF32hookflashhotmailcom@204.213.191.228>, 
hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash) wrote:

> I agree that the PovRay license is currently inadequate.  In fact, I 
> think their whole software development philosophy is 
> counter-productive... If they would just OpenSource it like most 
> other free projects out there, and allow an open development process 
> (similar to Linux), we wouldn't have to all be sitting here waiting 
> in the dark for the next release.  Of coarse, I shouldn't be 
> complaining, considering that PovRay is just plain awesome, but 
> sometimes I get frustrated.  Just my 2 cents.

Um, what's wrong with MegaPOV? I wouldn't call it "waiting in the dark" 
with things like MegaPOV available...and perhaps you just haven't 
noticed, but there has been a small explosion of new patches lately.

As for the license: modifying POV-Ray is allowed, it just has to remain 
"POV-Ray"...you can't just strip out the renderer and use the parser, or 
use code from it in your own projects, the modified version has to 
retain the functionality of the official version. This seems to be quite 
a reasonable requirement to me...or were you talking about the other 
restrictions?

And a much more "open" development model is planned for POV 4.0. For 
more information, read the message "POV-Team Status Report - September 
1, 2000" by Chris Cason in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions.

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

<><

Post a reply to this message

>Um, what's wrong with MegaPOV? I wouldn't call it "waiting in the dark" 
>with things like MegaPOV available...and perhaps you just haven't 
>noticed, but there has been a small explosion of new patches lately.

I love MegaPov, but we are being kept waiting in the dark as far as the 
actual development schedule is concerned.  If someone on this newsgroup 
asks when 3.5 will be released, they will get several "When it's ready" 
responses, which are pretty much useless.

>As for the license: modifying POV-Ray is allowed, it just has to remain 
>"POV-Ray"...you can't just strip out the renderer and use the parser, or 
>use code from it in your own projects, the modified version has to 
>retain the functionality of the official version. This seems to be quite 
>a reasonable requirement to me...or were you talking about the other 
>restrictions?

I, personally, have no desire to strip out the renderer and use the parser 
or anything of the sort, but I don't really see what harm there would be in 
doing so.  That's the whole idea behind OpenSource:  Sharing of source and 
ideas.  Peter Popov mentioned that some parts of PovRay were written by 
people who can no longer be contacted, and therefore using their code 
without restriction (and without their permission) could lead to trouble.  
Well, I don't think these people would've contributed their code with that 
sort of attitude; and, even if they had, are they really going to take the 
time/effort to cause trouble?

>And a much more "open" development model is planned for POV 4.0. For 
>more information, read the message "POV-Team Status Report - September 
>1, 2000" by Chris Cason in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions.
>

This is a relief, but, at the current rate of PovRay development, I don't 
know if I'll live that long;-P

Post a reply to this message