Christoph Hormann wrote:
[things about the terms of use]

Christoph, I've changed the terms of use on my web site a little. Could
you have a look at them now and let me know if they are any better than
before?
http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp

(I have not yet changed the terms of use written in the documentation
for the particle system itself.)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> I don't see why you seem to think that it is
>> such a great advantage to use function based
>> environments, if you compare the pros and cons.
>
> Because i have used it and it works very nicely.

You didn't comment on the issue of the environments being complex CSGs
or meshes. I still think that's a big limitation of function based
environments. Sure they have other advantages instead, but I didn't want
to implement both methods, and when choosing just one, I by far prefer
the object based environments.

All the time I have profiled my particle system on its
user-friendliness, and I couldn't have done that with function based
environments.

> Maybe just try it out with some heightfield object
> (and an image_map function in comparison).

"Just try it out"? It's you who have support for it in your system.
Implementing it in mine would take a very long time, and I'm not
interested in it in the first place.

> I remember this flowing animation with two channels
> dividing and merging you once posted, this would be
> a nice test object.

I can send you the image I used for the height_field if you want it...
But I think it would look better if the height_field is rotated by the
angles <5,15,5>. Doing this with an object is extremely easy, even for a
newbie user. Is it that with a function based environment too?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> Christoph, I've changed the terms of use on my web site a little. Could
> you have a look at them now and let me know if they are any better than
> before?
> http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp
> 

As it seems you removed the requirement of contacting you when publishing
images made with help of your files and added a clear mention of the
possibility to obtain commercial licenses.  Surely better.

BTW, your 'pov goodies' section does not contain a link to these terms -
does this mean these are not covered by the restrictions?

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> You didn't comment on the issue of the environments being complex CSGs
> or meshes. I still think that's a big limitation of function based
> environments. 
> [...]

Surely it is.  I did not want to start a religious discussion on that
matter. i just wanted to mention that functions might be an improvement in
certain situations and surely would be a solution for certain problems.  I
would never suggest to remove intersection based collisions completely in
favor of function based ones, just an alternative.

Of course the advantages are much more significant if the particles have a
radius (like in my simulation system).

And if user-friendliness was the only criteria isosurfaces would never
have been implemented in the first place... ;-)

> [...]
> 
> But I think it would look better if the height_field is rotated by the
> angles <5,15,5>. Doing this with an object is extremely easy, even for a
> newbie user. Is it that with a function based environment too?

Sure, you should really try the IsoCSG library:

#declare fn_Rotated=
  IC_Transform(
    function { fn_Original(x, y, z) },
    transform { rotate <5,15,5> }
  )

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Surely better.

Ah, good.

> BTW, your 'pov goodies' section does not contain
> a link to these terms - does this mean these are
> not covered by the restrictions?

Err, well. The files on the goodies page are not include files, they are
just some pov files that describe some techniques that are not even
particularly advanced. Since you can't copyright a technique, I cannot
(and will not) prevent people from using those techniques wherever they
want.

Of course the files still may not be redistributed etc. I also still
appreciate credits where due (like for example you have done on your
page), but I cannot make it a strict requirement.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> [things about the terms of use]
> 
> Christoph, I've changed the terms of use on my web site a little. Could
> you have a look at them now and let me know if they are any better than
> before?
> http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp

Food for thought...

If I modify and use one of your include files to make an image I recieve $100
dollars for, and never credit nor contact you, are you willing to pursue legal
action against me in an international court of law?

Are you ready to back up your words with actions?

Otherwise, what do you hope to accomplish with these terms of use?

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> Food for thought...
>
> If I modify and use one of your include files to make
> an image I recieve $100 dollars for, and never credit
> nor contact you, are you willing to pursue legal
> action against me in an international court of law?

No, most likely not, and chances are I'd never find out about it in the
first place.

> Are you ready to back up your words with actions?

Only to some extent.

> Otherwise, what do you hope to accomplish with these
> terms of use?

Instruct honest people how they may use the files that I have made
available?

It has paid off a few times you know...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Allow me to play Devils Advocate for a moment here -

---------------------
I just copyrighted the following scene.

camera{location<0,0,-3>look_at 0}
light_source{<0,0,-2> rgb 1}
box{-.5,.5 pigment{rgb 1}}

You may not use the same syntax in any of your scenes or make derivative
works from it without first contacting me, paying me royalties and ensuring
that I am duly credited.
-----------------------



-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> Allow me to play Devils Advocate for a moment here -
>
> ---------------------
> I just copyrighted the following scene.
>
> camera{location<0,0,-3>look_at 0}
> light_source{<0,0,-2> rgb 1}
> box{-.5,.5 pigment{rgb 1}}
>
> You may not use the same syntax in any of your scenes
> or make derivative works from it without first
> contacting me, paying me royalties and ensuring that
> I am duly credited.
> -----------------------

Sure, I won't copy it, but I may by coincidence make an almost identical
scene file myself one day.

I really don't get what point you're trying to get through. The scene
above is a very minimal one that anyone could come up with, and thus it
doesn't make sense to copyright it. Are you implying that my include
files are equally simplistic, and that anyone could come up with those
too? If you have an actual message, could you say it in a more direct
way?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

> My particle system is finally released!
Great stuff !

Like Christoph, I have some concerns about your terms of use (TOS),
particularly because this seems to be a growing trend for freebie makers,
and one I don't like much. There have been some heated discussion in the
Poser forums about this and this imitation by individuals of certain habits
of software vendors leaves a lot of folks uneasy.
In a nutshell, while one must respect your decision to make strict demands
on how you want your work to be used, one can wonders if there would be a
community like this if everyone who provides free material had done the same
since the beginning. I expect people who make a living out of their graphic
work to make such restrictions, but I fail to see what benefit these
restrictions bring in the case of free material. IMHO, they're more likely
to alienate potential users. In the case of Poser freebies, I certainly
prefer now to buy material than risking offending someone. Quite a silly
situation.

Here are some precise comments:

>My files are for your enjoyment and education but may not be the basis of
>any derivative works. Also, you may not alter, correct, or improve any of
my
>files in any way.

People have been using my tree, grass, pipe etc. macros a lot in the last
years. They have modified them and improved them. I'm glad of this and I
think that it makes my work even more valuable, since it allows innovation
and circulation of ideas. Allowing people to do this is also a way for me to
thank all those who have done the same before. What is the global benefit in
not allowing this ?

>You may create images, animations, and other material where my include
files have
>been used in the process of creation, and use this material for
non-commercial purposes.

Granted, a few people (including me) sell images or do commissioned work
that include free material.
In my case, the restritcion will prevent me from using your macros
altogether, since I rarely know beforehand if I will make an image available
for sale or not. Even if I don't sell it, it may happen one day that someone
wants it for a book.

I understand that people who provide free material can think that this is
not fair that others benefit from it. Personally, I don't care whether my
free stuff is used commercially or not : I do it to help and please people,
and this includes people making a few bucks on the side. The possibility of
people abusing this seems extremely remote in the case of POV-Ray. There are
possible problems, but I don't think that a strict TOS will solve them,
particularly when you wouldn't be able to enforce it.

> For commercial usage, please contact me for receiving the current price
list and further information.

Well, if you think that your material has a market value, making it clearly
commercial (instead of limiting its use) is the way to go. However, having
been there myself, I'd say that it's your skills that you need to sell, not
the product itself, whose uses are targeted at a largely penniless hobbyist
crowd.

Ken Tyler is trying to demonstrate it to you in this thread, but I feel that
it's some can of worms I never thought that someone would open in the case
of POV-Ray... OK, what if Chris Colefax, or Jaime or I start doing the
same... Or the POV-Team itself ? Anyone here want to see that ?

>You must give me credits where due including both my name (Rune S.
Johansen) and a link to my web site (and the credits should not be hidden
away on a place where nobody sees it).

In my experience, people are more than willing to give credit when credit is
due. They do it without being asked to do so and sometimes they send "thank
you" emails. If what you do is really good and useful, be sure that people
will be thankful. I've never seen people take full credit for things I had
done. People who would do this certainly wouldn't care for a TOS anyway. I
think that NOT asking for credits is much nicer to users than asking.

Also, *** requiring *** people to give you credit is too much to ask. I
certainly do my best to credit people and in a few cases it meant spending
hours searching the net for some obscure, long-dead web pages. Still there
are many circumstances where it's not possible to credit everyone and
provide links to everything (like posting images in forums). There are also
priorities in what one can consider worth of credit or not and for me this
decision only belongs to the artist. So again, by using your macros the user
could risk violating the TOS some day.

OK, that's all :-) Just ideas, I won't make a big fuss about it !

G.

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message