is that legal?  i mean, can somebody distribute somebody
else's include files?  i'm no lawyer, but i know that just cuz
something is free doesn't imply that anybody can distribute
it...  i believe thats even the case with povray.

but i do agree that it would be GREAT to have a hundred
or two of the best includes in a central repository.

miker

"Jim Kress" <kre### [at] kressworkscom> wrote in message
news:3ba4daf4$1@news.povray.org...
> You might want to talk to Ken about inclusion of a set of links that are
> specific to include files.  Also, why don't you start compiling and
> organizing a set of include files and keep them on your web site for
> everyone to access?
>
> Jim
>
> "Nikodemus Siivola" <tsi### [at] cchutfi> wrote in message
> news:3ba4d8a9@news.povray.org...
> >
> > "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> >
> > >   POV-Ray 3.5 contains lots of standard include files which are well
> > > documented, which is a great improvement compared to previous
versions.
> >
> > True ;) But could the standard include files should be distributed
> > separately? This way the standard library could (maybe) be evolve more
> > rapidly, instead of being updated per release...
> >
> >  -- Nikodemus
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   And besides, a continuously updated set of include files can be a
> good thing, but it can also be a bad thing: If some include files are
> changed, then lots of existing pov files can become incompatible with
> them. That is there will be a lot of versioning problems. There may be
> pov-files which work with the library version 3.5a5, but not with
> versions 3.5a4 nor 3.5a6. This can be a headache.

Good public-macro writing habits can prevent this.  I have re-written
my macros from time to time, primarily when a macro does not work as
advertised.  New ideas are implemented in new macros, instead of being
tacked onto old ones.

Regards,
John
-- 
ICQ: 46085459

Post a reply to this message

"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> >   And besides, a continuously updated set of include files can be a
> > good thing, but it can also be a bad thing: If some include files are
> > changed, then lots of existing pov files can become incompatible with

> Good public-macro writing habits can prevent this.  I have re-written

Indeed. And I would think that a moderated collection would not be prone
to functionality changing modifications: if it's not broken -- don't fix
it.

 -- Nikodemus

Post a reply to this message