 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> [...]
> I have a scene file included with pov
> 3.5, where I put the words "Copyright Greg M. Johnson.", and this is what I
> meant when I wrote that.
The conditions for the sample scenes are clearly stated in povlegal -
everything apart from the 'incdemo' scenes is not allowed to be used in
derivative work but purely for enjoyment and studies.
>
> Q: Is this already the policy for example with postings to p.t.s-f.?
When posting some code in these newsgroups you maintain the copyright on
it, unless you write something different nobody is allowed to use it in
own work. Of course there are a lot of people where i know that they
generally allow others to use code posted in these newsgroups.
> Q: Is this the way things should be?
I think so. Everyone should be free to decide on the terms of use for his
code.
> Q: Do we need to come up with some sort of common statement where we can
> say, "Use of this code is governed by the Povray Freeware Contributors
> Community Copyright Statement?"
I think the demands on such a licence will differ so there is not much
point in creating a standard.
Your idea for a licence seems somewhat difficult in practice. You can
surely restrict the commercial redistribution of modified versions of your
code (like the POV-Ray source code) but it would be difficult to disallow
others to modify your code for 'in house' use (unless you disallow the use
completely of course).
Concerning making money 'of the code itself' - there will rarely be
someone trying to make money with a POV-Ray source file itself and since
you can't copyright the idea any restrictions won't prevent anyone from
using the idea behind your flocking system in his own work.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 31 Dec. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Christoph Hormann" <chr### [at] gmx de> wrote in message
news:3E2C2AE4.563A5005@gmx.de...
>
> The conditions for the sample scenes are clearly stated in povlegal -
> everything apart from the 'incdemo' scenes is not allowed to be used in
> derivative work but purely for enjoyment and studies.
>
So no one may make a work that is derivative and say uses the FindKnee macro
and then publishes a commercial off of it?
>
> Your idea for a licence seems somewhat difficult in practice. You can
> surely restrict the commercial redistribution of modified versions of your
> code
I actually don't mind rewritten versions of "my" code. Just like I hope JvS
doesn't mind us rewriting the FindKnee macro....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3e2c1ca3@news.povray.org...
> "all flocking algorithms using constant acceleration." Or suppose the
guy
> who made the TV commercial with my blobman then tries to exercise some
kind
Just a question: did someone actually make a TV commercial with your blobman
or is it a "what if" scenario?
IMHO, fussing about copyright issues on POV-Ray SDL code is overkill. Keep
it simple enough so that other users don't fret about doing something wrong
by using your code.
POV-Ray itself has a commercial value ; the images people do can have a
commercial value ; people can get hired or paid because of the sort of
wonders they can make with the SDL.
But since our favorite software *** cannot *** be part of the workflow of
production houses for well-known reasons, the commercial value of SDL code
itself is zero. A copyright notice is necessary (it's there to remind the
user that someone has a copyright on it) but I just don't think there's such
a shortage of CG researchers and developers that companies need to plunder
POV-Ray scenes for bits of code about flocking algorithms, particle systems,
blobby characters, trees or automatic plumbing systems when all of this
already exists in professional software and is already usable in production
environments. Companies may "borrow" ideas of course (I've had a few
questions from companies concerning my macros or the way I coded scenes for
instance) but reusing code doesn't make sense, and in the unlikely event
they'd borrow the algorithm I don't see that any copyright notice would
protect you anyway. If someone created some SDL code so valuable to get a
company interested, the real value here would be more the talent of the
coder than the code itself. After all, POV-Ray has been around for more than
10 years and if it had been possible to make a fortune out of it we'd
already know ;-)
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was one of those who came down hard on the first draft of Rune's policy
for his particle system, and I still bristle at "no commercial use"
provisions on some code. But then I realized that there would be some uses
of my code that I'd not like either. And I do dream of being "prior art"
that prevents a company from getting an abusively over-reaching patent on
something (rather than they steal from me, per se.)
The purpose of my note was to find a middle ground between "no commercial
use" and something on the other extreme. Right now, I'm like the guy with a
leaky boat who goes fishing every other weekend but dreams of becoming a
commercial fisherman. I am thinking about uploading some images to zazzle
and so have been avoiding code with these provisions.
"Gilles Tran" <git### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
news:3e2ca537@news.povray.org...
> But since our favorite software *** cannot *** be part of the
> workflow of production houses for well-known reasons,
>
Uh, really?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)565### [at] aolcom> wrote in message
news:3e2d48c5$1@news.povray.org...
> provisions on some code. But then I realized that there would be some uses
> of my code that I'd not like either. And I do dream of being "prior art"
The same will go for all - I have some sort of copyright notice on my website,
but I'm thinking of removing it. The intent was to prevent my resources possibly
being used by an organisation of which I did not approve, but the more I think
about it, the more dubious such an intent seems....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3e2d48c5$1@news.povray.org...
> "Gilles Tran" <git### [at] wanadoofr> wrote in message
> news:3e2ca537@news.povray.org...
> > But since our favorite software *** cannot *** be part of the
> > workflow of production houses for well-known reasons,
> Uh, really?
In a nutshell:
POV-Ray SDL as a modelling language : unusable outside POV
POV-Ray as a renderer : no direct support for industry formats (RIB etc.)
This alone leaves 0 room for POV-Ray use in a regular 3D production
workflow.
I'm not mentioning other reasons related to features, speed, training etc.
POV-Ray can be perfectly valuable by other professionals such as teachers,
artists, scientists, architects, designers etc. I'm using it for the
automatic generation and storage of graphs and it's been tremendously useful
in my work.
However, hold no illusions (and build no castles) about its useability in
professional 3D.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote:
>
> I was one of those who came down hard on the first draft of Rune's policy
> for his particle system, and I still bristle at "no commercial use"
> provisions on some code. But then I realized that there would be some uses
> of my code that I'd not like either. And I do dream of being "prior art"
> that prevents a company from getting an abusively over-reaching patent on
> something (rather than they steal from me, per se.)
I think you would go fine with a 'free use but disallowing redistribution'
licence (unless you feel bad about that for some reason).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 31 Dec. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> In a nutshell:
> POV-Ray SDL as a modelling language : unusable outside POV
> POV-Ray as a renderer : no direct support for industry formats (RIB etc.)
> This alone leaves 0 room for POV-Ray use in a regular 3D production
> workflow.
> I'm not mentioning other reasons related to features, speed, training etc.
I generally agree but i would put 'training' (and lack of familiarity)
above all other things in terms problems for usage in CG industry.
POV-Ray would surely be suited as an external renderer with a very broad
set of features but efficient use of those features making POV-Ray
superior to other rendering tools really requires a lot of experience.
What might underline this: I have hardly seen any CG professional who
really knows what POV-Ray is capable of, most think it is just a tool for
experiments with reflective spheres on checkered grounds incapable of
rendering any larger scene (a critique that is similarly applied, but in
this case right, to most low quality beginners tools).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 31 Dec. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3E2D5F85.7A424921@gmx.de...
> POV-Ray would surely be suited as an external renderer with a very broad
> set of features but efficient use of those features making POV-Ray
> superior to other rendering tools really requires a lot of experience.
As a renderer, POV-Ray can do wonders and certainly many people,
particularly in the CG industry, ignore that.
But the main issue here is streamlining the rendering process. Funneling
scenes made elsewhere into POV-Ray is a major hurdle because they must be
converted first and a lot is lost in the process (shaders with no POV-Ray
equivalent). Even the geometry can be troublesome (mesh artefacts, problems
with some model formats). Also, some SDL tweaking is often necessary after
the conversion to get good results. I suppose that these problems alone make
it impossible to use in production.
Of course, if someone could make POV-Ray fully compatible with the big apps
that would be a different story. Still, prestige notwithstanding, is this
really necessary?
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Lundi 20 Janvier 2003 16:57, Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>
> Q: Is this already the policy for example with postings to
> p.t.s-f.? Q: Is this the way things should be?
> Q: Do we need to come up with some sort of common statement
> where we can say, "Use of this code is governed by the Povray
> Freeware Contributors Community Copyright Statement?"
Have you heard of Creative Commons? It is a non-profit
organization that has been created with the intent of
helping people benefit from copyright laws.
As their first project, they have created a set of
licenses that cover the most common rights authors
want to grant to their licensees, and the most common
conditions they want to impose on them. There are
four such "characteristics", resulting in eleven
licenses to choose from.
Of course, the licenses share a lot of material (all
the "characteristics" do is add or alter a couple of
paragraphs). The baseline rights and restrictions in
all licenses are described here:
http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/fullrights
The four characteristics are:
Attribution
The licensor permits others to copy,
distribute, display, and perform the work.
In return, licensees must give the original
author credit.
No Derivative Works
The licensor permits others to copy,
distribute, display and perform only unaltered
copies of the work -- not derivative works
based on it.
Noncommercial
The licensor permits others to copy, distribute,
display, and perform the work. In return,
licensees may not use the work for commercial
purposes -- unless they get the licensor's permission.
Share Alike
The licensor permits others to distribute
derivative works under a license identical to the
one that governs the licensor's work.
The list of the eleven licenses that result from the
combination of the characteristics is here:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
For each of the licenses, a deed is available, which points
to the full license.
For example, the Attribution-NonCommercial Deed is here:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0
and the license is here:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0-legalcode
They of course have a home page for the licenses, with a form
to help you choose your license, but I feel it doesn't give an
overview of the whole project, that's why I preferred to give
you my view of the project. You can enter the project via its
official home page at:
http://creativecommons.org/license/
It appears the organization also has some kind of "Let's kill
the middleman" stance that I don't quite like, but eh, the
licenses are still fine with me. You can learn more about the
whole thing at:
http://creativecommons.org/faq
http://creativecommons.org/learn
and of course:
http://creativecommons.org/
Hope this helps.
--
spam.bucke t### [at] freefr
You have my name and my hostname: you can mail me
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
