 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> It's fine for me. I can understand the "commercial" part,
> but the requirement for credits is something that I always
> find strange.
> Thanks again for the changes... now it's time to try it!
Well that makes me happy. :)
The terms written in the documentation of the particle system itself are
not yet updated. They soon will be though, so you can just ignore the
old terms there.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(I don't know quite what to quote here; those following the thread will
presumably know what I'm responding to, so hopefully I'll be forgiven.)
All I can do here is reiterate things that others have said, in the hope
that one of us will be able to make you see or agree with something
where the others fail. With that said, I'm going to take a different
tack from the people protesting on moral grounds, and go straight to the
practical argument.
Rune, who do you think is going to pay you for commercial use of your
particle system (or indeed anything else that you add to POV-Ray's bag
of tricks)? Professional CG artists are far more likely to use 3DSMAX or
Maya or something; they're not going to pay you for some "useless" bit
of POV script. People like Gilles Tran aren't going to pay you; they'll
just not use your work. And then there are the people like me -
unashamed software pirates - who would happily use your work and not
give you a dime or a shred of credit, in the belief that information is
inherently free and that artificial limitations on its freedom can and
should be ignored.
When you get right down to it, do you *really* have any customers at
all? And even if you had, say, four or five, would their small financial
contributions really be worth the time you spent making your particle
system? Would they justify the fact that almost no one else is using
your code for anything? Would their contributions be more valuable than
free third-party improvements to your code?
One other thing (and here I dip into the moral argument): if you feel
that people are entitled to monetary compensation for their intellectual
work if others use it for financial gain, then how have you compensated
others for *their* intellectual work, which *you* are now using for
commercial gain? Have you paid the members of the POV Team for their
work in creating and maintaining POV-Ray? Have you donated money to keep
this news server running, and did you pay for ad space to advertise your
product? Have you sent off checks to the people whose work on particle
systems you probably used in making your own, and the people who
published that work? Did you pay posters here for any suggestions or
help they might have given you?
If not, then you're a hypocrite, and you deserve to have your work
stolen from you and used without compensation, just as you have used
others' resources without compensation.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm not taking sides here and don't want to become
part of the discussion (I'll put a TOS of my own on
my website soon enough, my own particle system
is also in the final run), simply because I'm just
a spectator on this matter. Don't have time to
check newsgroups often these days, and reading
everything is definitely not in my schedule...
But I think this last part about being a hypocrite was
a little too aggressive. I do agree that POV is a
utility hardly anyone uses to make profit with, so
actually I think that the scripts coded with POV-SDL
are part of a hobby. Anyone seriously using POV
could write a simple one himself, if there is need.
But thats not the point of releasing include-files, is it?
Now that I've said that, I think I'll shut up again and
leave more competent people do the talking. I don't
feel like this is a bashing of Rune, more like some
fundamental discussion regarding TOS of POV and
of scripts used by POV, and it just "happened" that
Rune took a side others dont agree with.
So, no offense, anyone.
Regards,
Tim
--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmx de
> (I don't know quite what to quote here; those following the thread will
> presumably know what I'm responding to, so hopefully I'll be forgiven.)
>
> All I can do here is reiterate things that others have said, in the hope
> that one of us will be able to make you see or agree with something
> where the others fail. With that said, I'm going to take a different
> tack from the people protesting on moral grounds, and go straight to the
> practical argument.
>
> Rune, who do you think is going to pay you for commercial use of your
> particle system (or indeed anything else that you add to POV-Ray's bag
> of tricks)? Professional CG artists are far more likely to use 3DSMAX or
> Maya or something; they're not going to pay you for some "useless" bit
> of POV script. People like Gilles Tran aren't going to pay you; they'll
> just not use your work. And then there are the people like me -
> unashamed software pirates - who would happily use your work and not
> give you a dime or a shred of credit, in the belief that information is
> inherently free and that artificial limitations on its freedom can and
> should be ignored.
>
> When you get right down to it, do you *really* have any customers at
> all? And even if you had, say, four or five, would their small financial
> contributions really be worth the time you spent making your particle
> system? Would they justify the fact that almost no one else is using
> your code for anything? Would their contributions be more valuable than
> free third-party improvements to your code?
>
> One other thing (and here I dip into the moral argument): if you feel
> that people are entitled to monetary compensation for their intellectual
> work if others use it for financial gain, then how have you compensated
> others for *their* intellectual work, which *you* are now using for
> commercial gain? Have you paid the members of the POV Team for their
> work in creating and maintaining POV-Ray? Have you donated money to keep
> this news server running, and did you pay for ad space to advertise your
> product? Have you sent off checks to the people whose work on particle
> systems you probably used in making your own, and the people who
> published that work? Did you pay posters here for any suggestions or
> help they might have given you?
>
> If not, then you're a hypocrite, and you deserve to have your work
> stolen from you and used without compensation, just as you have used
> others' resources without compensation.
>
> -Xplo
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
>
> If not, then you're a hypocrite, and you deserve to have your work
> stolen from you and used without compensation, just as you have used
> others' resources without compensation.
>
> -Xplo
That's a bit over the top, especially from someone who admits to
pirating.
I think your practical remarks made some sense, but still it's
up to the creator of a package to decide what to do with it and
your last few lines don't really help much here.
It's unreasonable to expect from someone that he has to shower
cash around before he's entitled to make a buck.
But then again, piracy and reason seldom go together...
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3db48cf7@news.povray.org...
> of POV script. People like Gilles Tran aren't going to pay you; they'll
> just not use your work.
No. I don't mind paying people for their work when it's valuable. After all,
like many hobbyists, I already pay (too much!) for my hobby. In this light,
paying for Rune's work doesn't seem unreasonable. To be frank, if I were
considering Rune's macros for a big animation project for a client, I
wouldn't object to pay him because it would save me time and money. It would
be a business decision. It's extremely theoretical though : not only POV-Ray
hobbyists are not very competitive marketwise, but there are dozens of
particle plug-ins in commercial software and thousands of starving graphic
3D artists who know how to use them.
But it doesn't make the idea of commercial POV-Ray script less unsettling,
considering how things had been working until now. Here's some Pandora's
box...
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> 3db48cf7@news.povray.org...
>
>>of POV script. People like Gilles Tran aren't going to pay you; they'll
>>just not use your work.
>
>
> No. I don't mind paying people for their work when it's valuable.
I recall you saying that because of the licensing terms, you wouldn't be
using Rune's particle system. My apologies if I have somehow
misunderstood you and misrepresented your position; I was only trying to
use you as an example.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>
>>
>>If not, then you're a hypocrite, and you deserve to have your work
>>stolen from you and used without compensation, just as you have used
>>others' resources without compensation.
>
> That's a bit over the top, especially from someone who admits to
> pirating.
I don't see why. I'm not the one trying to sell software here. How am I
acting against my stated position? And I was trying to make a point.
As far as my usage of the word "hypocrite" to describe Rune being
excessive, I don't think so. All he has to do to not be a hypocrite in
my opinion is to either free his code or compensate anyone who helped
him develop it (directly or otherwise) as that would be only fair. If he
wishes to do neither of these, then I say: if the shoe fits, wear it.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3db5399e@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
> I recall you saying that because of the licensing terms, you wouldn't be
> using Rune's particle system.
In the first version of the TOS it was non-commercial only (or to that
effect) so I couldn't use the macros but the new version of the TOS is
clearer, if not really satisfying ;-)
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3db53b04@news.povray.org...
> All he has to do to not be a hypocrite in
> my opinion is to either free his code or compensate anyone who helped
> him develop it (directly or otherwise) as that would be only fair.
To be really fair, everyone who sells "products of the intellect" kind of
goods may know this sort of little moral tugging because there's always
something in what you sell that was given to you by someone else (ideas,
bits of code etc.). I guess a little hypocrisy is unavoidable and is usually
forgivable. The questions are, how it balances out eventually (how much
value did you add to what you received) or, well, how much you want/need the
money!
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> But people who don't put these sort of restrictions
> don't seem to suffer from it. I certainly don't.
> So why the extra and unfriendly step ?
Well, how would you like it if people made modified versions of your
images and distributed them beyond your control? I know that images and
include files are not the same thing, but I feel the same way about the
include files I make.
> If everyone acted like this, there would never have
> been a POV-Ray community, and most people - including
> you and me - would never have been acquainted with it.
So if POV-Ray was only free for non-commercial usage, there would be
suddenly no user-base at all? I'm not sure about the correctness of this
assumption.
> Please, use your imagination and think hard about it :
> what if everyone was doing that ? What sort of
> legalese hell would it be ?
No, I still don't see the problem.
I have contributed lots of things to this community that can be used as
anyone pleases. It's only my most complete and finished include files
that go under the terms of use in question. I could never dream about
doing the same for simple advise or for the casual helpful 50 lines of
code here and there.
It wouldn't bother me if all the include files that people make were
only free for non-commercial purposes.
> By requiring them to do it you imply that they're
> dishonest by default. It's like putting "Customers,
> we remind you that you must pay for what you buy"
> signs in a shop.
Such a sign makes sense if there are many other shops that offer free
goods. It's not at all obvious that my include files are not free for
commercial usage, if I don't explicitly write it.
> you hurt yourself because of the lack of exposure you
> need as someone with real 3D skills.
Somehow I doubt that greater exposure of my include files would make
anyone hire me, send me free things, or anything like that.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
