 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
All right, let's stop it here as it is basically boiling down to an "Open
Source is good / Open Source is bad" flame war. As I wrote before, I like
coding and not quarreling.
Now I know for sure that I have to embark in a loooong project... I hope to
post news (and code) in a couple of months ;-)
Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iol it
P.S.: Open Source is different from Richard Stallman's Free Software: if you
don't think so, goto http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ . Other interesting
references are http://www.opensource.org/ and http://www.opencontent.org/
for an example that all this does not apply only to code.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hookflash wrote:
>
> That's why I dislike the current development model... The only information
> we get about the process is whatever the developers decide to tell us. I
> would prefer a more open, community-oriented approach (OpenSource,
> basically). But maybe that's just my preference.
Well, you can always modify the povray source to make your own patch as
long as you comply with the licence. megapov *is* a much more open
approach containing the patches from a lot of different people. Anyway
there are a lot of problems with megapov, because most patches were
developed for some special purpose and for example are not easy to use,
not well optimized or don't work well together with other patches.
As i understand it Povray 3.5 is not only about adding new features to
Povray but also about keeping consistence concerning the Povray language,
the documentation and of course the source code. I much appreciate that
effort.
>
> And what harm would there be in that? If someone wants to use the renderer
> in their own program or distribute a crippled version, who cares? If it's
> not PovRay anymore, they can use a different name and logo.
I don't agree with that, mainly because i would not like that either if it
was my programming work.
>
> How can we obtain their permission when we can't contact them?
>
POVLEGAL says how you can contact the POV-Team if you have questions
concerning the licence. Furthermore i suppose you can also contact the
TAG about that.
>
> I appreciate the work the PovTeam is doing, but I think it would be easier
> on them *and* the community if we had a more open development model. Of
> coarse, I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice before... j/k;-)
>
According to the POV-Team Status Report there is going to be some change
in that for version 4. You can read the Status Report in
povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >> 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.
> >
> >Well, that *is* the answer...there is no way to predict the final
> >release date. All of the information has been given: it is not yet beta,
> >not all of the additions have been completed, but it will have most of
> >the new features of MegaPOV, the feature list has been frozen, the
> >features just have to be implemented and tested, and nobody knows when
> >it will reach beta, let alone final release.
>
> That's why I dislike the current development model... The only information
> we get about the process is whatever the developers decide to tell us. I
> would prefer a more open, community-oriented approach (OpenSource,
> basically). But maybe that's just my preference.
I don't want to propagate long debates like this, bit let me give you some
information from a historical perspective.
The reason I proposed starting a POV-Ray team and using the source for DKBTrace
as a base was exactly because I couldn't keep up with the development on my
own. There were lots of people who wanted to add new features and extend the
system but couldn't because it was controlled by one individual. I was just
starting my Master's degree and I felt I wouldn't have time to put into adding
features into a free program and rather than let it die, I handed it over to a
group of developers to allow them to make their enhancements. It's ironic that
the same situation has occurred in POV-Ray.
If there's anything I learned from my DKBTrace and POV-Ray experience, it's
that integrating all the code. testing it, and putting together a release is as
difficult a job as just writing the code in the first place. Lots of gotchas
pop in and delay release. You also get a lot of people breathing down your
neck eager for the next release. Any time we jumped the gun and released a
package before we were ready, it backfired on us - something critical was
wrong, a fixed version had to be released in a hurry, and users are confused
about what version is right and what version is wrong. It gave people doubts
about the quality of the program and caused embarrassment on behalf of the
developers. I'm unconvinced that a completely open-sourced approach would
handle these issues well.
Also remember that even though the source is freely available and the program
is free to download and use, it still has a copyright and the POV-Ray team
still owns the intellectual material. At one time, we seriously considered
allowing various companies to license POV for a charge (keeping it free for
other uses), but the whole idea collapsed because we couldn't agree on how the
profits were to be split. It also caused a riff in the POV-Ray team because it
got into a "my contribution is worth more than your contribution" war. I can't
image the POV-Ray team tying that again.
I sympathize with the people who feel that the POV-Ray team holds too tightly
onto the reigns of power on POV-Ray. Remember, though, that they are trying to
set a certain standard on the quality of the package (including docs, examples,
etc) and they are ultimately responsible if things aren't right. It's easy to
criticize but it's hard to do. Give them some slack and let them do the work.
As for announcing release dates, there's no point. Internally, they will
probably have a date they are shooting for. If they miss that date, though,
they don't want flack from the user community asking "where is it?" Again
we've been through that before and it's not fun trying to explain slips in
schedules to the user community. We got into the "we'll announce it once it's
released and no sooner" to try to free our time to do the work rather than
answer questions on why we didn't make our predicted release date.
Enough said.
David Buck
dav### [at] simberoncom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:04:34 +0200, Peter Popov wrote:
>On 20 Jan 2001 18:20:25 -0500, hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash)
>>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?
>
>I doubt they would but still it doesn't give anyone full rights over
>these contributors' code.
In fact, some contributors did specify that their code could only be used
for POV-Ray, perhaps due to constraints on their contributions due to their
employers or other parties. By allowing reuse of that code, we could be
getting the original contributor in legal trouble with someone who really
does care.
By contrast, some code in POV-Ray really is free: the crackle code in
3.1 specifies in the comments that it's public domain (though you should
check that yourself rather than take my word on it, because I'm just saying
that from memory.)
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:41:56 -0500 David Buck wrote:
>If there's anything I learned from my DKBTrace and POV-Ray experience, it's
>that integrating all the code. testing it, and putting together a release is as
>difficult a job as just writing the code in the first place. Lots of gotchas
>pop in and delay release.
Nothing has changed in that regard, David <s>. The guys are hard at
work, writing and debugging, as we speak... err, type.
>At one time, we seriously considered
>allowing various companies to license POV for a charge (keeping it free for
>other uses), but the whole idea collapsed because we couldn't agree on how the
>profits were to be split. It also caused a riff in the POV-Ray team because it
>got into a "my contribution is worth more than your contribution" war. I can't
>image the POV-Ray team tying that again.
We like keeping it simple. We strive for cohesion within the POV-Team
and we have a really good, dedicated group of individuals right now.
People who can work well together can accomplish a lot. We also receive
invaluable help from the TAG (Technical Assistance Group), who provide a
much needed first line of support for these news groups.
>As for announcing release dates, there's no point. Internally, they will
>probably have a date they are shooting for. If they miss that date, though,
>they don't want flack from the user community asking "where is it?" Again
>we've been through that before and it's not fun trying to explain slips in
>schedules to the user community. We got into the "we'll announce it once it's
>released and no sooner" to try to free our time to do the work rather than
>answer questions on why we didn't make our predicted release date.
>
>Enough said.
...and well said, David. Thank you for your perspective.
--
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in <3a6a67b9@news.povray.org>:
>> And what harm would there be in that? If someone wants to use the
>renderer
>> in their own program or distribute a crippled version, who cares? If
>> it's not PovRay anymore, they can use a different name and logo.
>
>LOL, yeah I'll just take the object source code that's supplied with 3D
>Studio MAX Commercial, and I'll call it something different and change
>it slightly, and I'll sell it, there's no harm in that, after all, it
>won't be the 3D Studio MAX object source anymore.
>
>--
>Lance.
>
>http://come.to/the.zone
>
>
No, you won't do that, because 3DS Max is a commercial product. You would
be stealing profits, and that would be harmful to the developer's and their
business. PovRay, on the other hand, is freeware, so there are no profits
to steal.
Hookflash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>What do you mean by "a more open development model" exactly?
>
A development model where the community is involved in the actual
development of the program (i.e., similar to MegaPov, via patches and such)
and have access to some sort of development schedule. Why does there have
to be a dedicated group of select developers? Couldn't the entire
community (well, anyone who has the desire) be the "PovTeam"?
Hookflash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>I don't recall mentioning trouble. And I don't think anyone would
>start causing trouble. There are moral issues involved, though.
Sorry, misinterpretation on my part.
>The POV Team members work on POV in whatever free time they can steal
>from making a living and having a real life. They are doing it for
>free. How would you feel if you were in their position and people keep
>asking why development is slow? Think about it.
>
Well, you have to admit, development *is* slow... I'm not trying to be
rude, I'm just stating a fact. Development would be *much* faster if Pov's
license were like Linux's. Yeah, we'd have a bunch of different versions
of Pov, and some of them would be commercial, but I don't see that as such
a bad thing. I love the direction Linux is taking. On the other hand, I
do love PovRay, and I appreciate the work the developers are doing; I just
want what's best for PovRay.
Hookflash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No, you won't do that, because 3DS Max is a commercial product. You would
> be stealing profits, and that would be harmful to the developer's and
their
> business. PovRay, on the other hand, is freeware, so there are no profits
> to steal.
>
> Hookflash
If you've read the documentation you'd realise that POV-Ray *does* have a
commercial value and that what you just said isn't true.
There are funds to steal, and there is intellectual property to steal.
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21 Jan 2001 19:28:27 -0500, Hookflash wrote:
>Well, you have to admit, development *is* slow... I'm not trying to be
>rude, I'm just stating a fact. Development would be *much* faster if Pov's
>license were like Linux's. Yeah, we'd have a bunch of different versions
Yeah. You know Linux. That OS that just won Salon's vaporware of the
year award for kernel 2.4.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
