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

Gilles Tran wrote:
> 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 ?

It's a personal benefit. I have not given my files to the public domain,
and I'd like to keep control of how and where they are distributed. That
is not possible if people can distribute modified versions of my files
as they please.

> 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.

If you do make it available for sale, you can buy a license to use the
particle system commercially.

> Even if I don't sell it, it may happen one day that
> someone wants it for a book.

Would you gain any profit from this? If yes, see above. If not, this
might be a good situation to ask me for a special permission, since the
situation is a bit special (commercial work where you don't get any
profit yourself).

> I understand that people who provide free material
> can think that this is not fair that others benefit
> from it.

Exactly.

> 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.

I do not feel the same way.

> The possibility of people abusing this seems extremely
> remote in the case of POV-Ray.

Still, there are people who both can and will pay for a license to use
my files commercially, and I'd like to take that opportunity for *me* to
make a few bucks on the work I have done. And I think it's only fair.

> 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.

As I've said, I can only appeal to people's honesty.

> if you think that your material has a market value,
> making it clearly commercial (instead of limiting its use)
> is the way to go.

Clearly commercial so that hobbyists will also have to pay to use it
non-commercially? That's not something I'm interested in. Or what do you
mean exactly?

> 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.

Penniless until the day they begin earning money on it. And until that
day, they won't have to pay me anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by "selling my skills rather than the product
itself".

> OK, what if Chris Colefax, or Jaime or I start doing
> the same... Or the POV-Team itself ? Anyone here want
> to see that ?

We surely couldn't blame them. (Of course, the POV-Team have more or
less promised that they will never do it, so it would be kind of strange
if they broke that promise.)

Gilles, your macros and object collection is of high quality, so I
wouldn't mind being required to credit you wherever I use it, and I
wouldn't mind having to pay for it if I used it commercially.

So no, I don't see the problem.

> In my experience, people are more than willing to give
> credit when credit is due.

Except the few individuals who simply are not aware that it's considered
polite to give credit in such cases.

> I think that NOT asking for credits is much nicer to
> users than asking.

This is just a small detail IMO. I'd rather make things clear.

> Also, *** requiring *** people to give you credit
> is too much to ask.

Why? I think it's quite common tendency for free things on the net,
isn't it?

> There are also priorities in what one can consider worth
> of credit or not and for me this decision only belongs
> to the artist.

No, in the case of my files it's not the decision of the artist. The
artist can buy a commercial license by paying me money, or buy a
non-commercial license by "paying" me credit where due.

> So again, by using your macros the user could risk
> violating the TOS some day.

I don't see how that can happen involuntarily. Users don't risk
violating the TOS if they follow it.

I appreciate this discussion, so please don't hesitate to pursue your
arguments further. It is not totally out of the question that I might
make changes to some of the terms... :)

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:
> 
> I appreciate this discussion, so please don't hesitate to pursue your
> arguments further. It is not totally out of the question that I might
> make changes to some of the terms... :)
> 
> 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

I can understand your point, there is no real reason for me to
disagree and still I felt a bit uncomfortable when I read about
this.

Let me ramble a bit, perhaps it makes sense...

I have been using POVRay for commercial purposes (still do, come
to think of it) so I might be involved somehow, if I used your
particle system. I haven't had the need for it yet and I don't
really think I will. 
If I _would_ need it it would probably be for some detail
somewhere, not really be the key part. In such a case I think
I'd try to figure something out to simulate what it should look
like. I might also consider looking for some ready-to-use
alternatives. Running into a TOS like yours I'd probably stop
reading halfway and turn back to my own feeble attempts or look
somewhere else.

On the other hand, if it were free, with a line somewhere saying
that you'd appreciate any credit (financial or otherwise) that's
relevant, I would probably already have tried the system and
incorporated it in my work. If, at such a point, I'd realize the
value of your contribution I wouldn't hesitate paying for it. I
would probably even be willing to pay far more then (relieved
that I got the job done).
I have indeed done that for a package which a use a lot.

What Gilles already indicated is that you might benefit far more
by "selling your skills". With your particle system you have the
opportunity to show what you can do (as with lots of other
stuff). With such talents it's probably easier to earn a few
bucks then by selling a package in a freeware oriented
community. 

To get to the point: the main problem I see with your TOS is
that you depend on the honesty and good will of users, since you
have no way of protecting your package. It is exactly these
people who would probably share in their profits anyway (if any)
while the ones your setting the TOS up for wouldn't.
And I don't mind giving credit where credit's due but there
isn't always an appropriate place.

Still, as I said at the beginning, I can understand your point
of view.

CheerS!

Remco

Post a reply to this message