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

Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 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.

So theft of information is ok, eh? Well then, there's one obvious way
for me to avoid that happening, and that is not to publish or release
the information in the first place. That would also save me all the work
of writing documentation and making everything neat, and there probably
wouldn't be anyone complaining either. It really is a tempting thing to
consider for my future projects...

At least, that's the kind of reasoning that arguments like yours result
in.

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

3db57a70@news.povray.org...

> Well, how would you like it if people made modified versions of your
> images and distributed them beyond your control?

(Unless there would be some actual damage done to my reputation, it wouldn't
be such a problem. I just take care to not put commercially viable (i.e.
printable) images on-line. The one half-plagiary problem I got was settled
quite peacefully. There was also the case where someone re-rendered Jaime's
"Old Door" image with some minor changes, posted it and took way too much
credit for it. And there's an IRTC picture which is a unashamed copy of a
better pic (non-credited) and still won an award. But I guess we can live
with that.)

The trouble with POV-Ray include files is that, until now, the untold
assumption was that they were not supposed to have a non-symbolic commercial
value, just like POV-Ray (which has a symbolic retail value of 30$).
"Untold" because all the people who had created great include files before
you didn't bother, AFAIK. So it's like waking up and finding that something
that everyone was taking was granted was gone, and it explains why a few
people expressed their sadness. OK, so POV-Ray script files can be sold and
traded now, so please let the lawyers in, and the I Am Not A Lawyer But
threads, and endless EULA discussions like this one... (just overdoing it a
little bit, just for the fun of 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.

Because when things go commercial, the stakes suddenlenly get higher,
vendors get greedy and pushy, users get demanding and angry etc. It can
settle eventually but a lot is gone. Every time I frequent other 3D forums
concerning commercial software, I'm always surprised at the amount of
bitterness and resentement there. There are always people bitching at each
other, reciprocal accusations of piracy, of who stole what from whom, when
they don't rat each other out. Want an example : lately, some disgruntled
vendors of Poser models started sending anonymous hate mail to freebie
providers, accusing them of unfair competition. Here's a sample (I bleeped
the naughty words) that was posted recently in a Poser forum :

"Hows about you [bleep] right off out of the community. We don't need you or
your free [bleep] . The Renderosity store is there to give people the stuff
they need for Poser not [bleep]  who try to kill vendors by giving [bleep]
away."

See what we're missing ? I do believe that the POV-Ray community became what
it is now because of the absence of commercial competition between its
members. It's a nice place. We have this 100% free resource, we make nice
images and if someone sells a pic for 10$ once in a blue moon everybody's
happy and nobody's hurt. Why change that ?

> Somehow I doubt that greater exposure of my include files would make
> anyone hire me, send me free things, or anything like that.

POV-Ray is not a get-rich-quick scheme. No real money in that, period. Those
here who will make a career in 3D will have it once they'll get to use the
pro tools, after they will have been introduced to art/3D/programming
through POV-Ray. Think of Marco Fajardo, once a POV-Ray patcher, now the
Arnold/Messaiah guru. Or HE Day, who's busy learning Max. Or Debra Ross,
who's started with POV-Ray and is now making models for Curious Labs.
If you plan this sort of career, a nice resume showing the sort of thing you
did with POV-Ray, how successful you were doing them, and what popularity
you got will certainly help you landing jobs. Exposure of your work is
obviously instrumental in that. You need your name to come up in Google
searches to prove it and for that you need a maximum of people using your
stuff and happy with it, and if they post it without your consent, it's
still advertising for you.
But of course it really depends on what you plan to do with your life, lol.


G.


--

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

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> POV-Ray is not a get-rich-quick scheme.

POV-Ray is not an ANYTHING-quick scheme, LOL...;)

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
mirror: http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/z/9/z993126

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Would this work for making a still shot of a snowy scene where
it has been snowing for some time from various directions. Would
the snow accumulate over time? Stick to surfaces?


_____________
Kari Kivisalo

Post a reply to this message

Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> Would this work for making a still shot of a snowy
> scene where it has been snowing for some time from
> various directions.

No, that would require too many particles, and the system is not at all
optimized for this task.

> Would the snow accumulate over time? Stick to surfaces?

No and no. Sorry. :/

But thinking about it, I don't think that any particle system would be
well suited for a task like this. Assuming that we are talking about at
least semi-realistic snow spread over a somewhat large area...

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:
> 
> 
> Somehow I doubt that greater exposure of my include files would make
> anyone hire me, send me free things, or anything like that.
> 
> Rune

As Gilles said: don't underestimate the power of Google! ;)

If someone would be looking for information/assistance on a
subject like particle systems Google could be a place to start
and it might be benificial to be somewhere at the top of the
list there.

I actually think the odds for earning some cash that way are
better then through direct sales - in the long run that is.

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Remco de Korte wrote:
> As Gilles said: don't underestimate the power of Google! ;)
>
> If someone would be looking for information/assistance on a
> subject like particle systems Google could be a place to start
> and it might be beneficial to be somewhere at the top of the
> list there.

Yeah, right now a search for "particle system" only returns my site as
nr. 19.

Just a shame that I cannot give any information or assistance with
particle systems, because the only one I've made is pretty simplistic
and is not at all based on a thorough background knowledge on the
subject.

> I actually think the odds for earning some cash that way are
> better then through direct sales - in the long run that is.

Well, I fail to see how.

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 actually think the odds for earning some cash that way are
> > better then through direct sales - in the long run that is.
> 
> Well, I fail to see how.
> 
> Rune
> --

I can understand that. I sympathize with the fact that you're
trying to get something back for things you've been providing.
In a freeware oriented community that is *difficult* to say the
least.

You claim you have little knowledge about particle systems, but
what are you offering then and why do you expect people to pay
for that (instead of other things you might have to offer *)? 

I'm not saying anything about the value of your system (the
inherent value, which is probably different from the value in
the freeware context) or of your skills. But one good project
would probably earn you more then you would ever get from
selling licenses.

It's been known to happen (to me for instance) but you have to
get some exposure. Preferrably outside the POV-community,
because they're all paupers ;)

Whichever way you go I still think you have the right to choose
for yourself.

Cheers!

Remco


*) uh-oh, I'm not suggesting you should start selling your body
or organs or something ;)

Post a reply to this message