POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.general : POV-Ray Includes - Licensing Server Time
1 Aug 2024 02:23:00 EDT (-0400)
  POV-Ray Includes - Licensing (Message 14 to 23 of 53)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: nemesis
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: 29 Nov 2006 19:05:00
Message: <web.456e1f276ea74aa9b1e716f90@news.povray.org>
"Chris B" <c_b### [at] btconnectcomnospam> wrote:
> I think it's really picking a level that we feel won't deter potential
> contributors but that also won't stop the community from modifying and
> redistributing contributions, particularly back through this collection.

This thread has got the least attention from the others.  My guess is that
people either don't mind copyrights or mind too much to even consider
sharing their works under suspiciously named licenses with lots of boredom
legalese...

> Personally I'd prefer that they could modify and redistribute in other ways
> too (e.g. for profit), simply because I feel that people are more likely to
> invest their time in something where there's a prospect that they'll be free
> to use it in more or less any way they like in the future (but I can't prove
> that).

Just as a last complement, let me clarify this:  the free in "free software"
is freedom, not gratis.  There are big companies making money off
open-source software.

The LGPL is less intransigent than the GPL in that it allows LGPL libraries
-- like povray includes -- to be used by even proprietary closed-source
software without requiring such software to be licensed under the same
terms or disclosing the sources.  The only requirement is that if you
redistribute a *modified* LGPL code, you distribute the modification as
well.

So, if someone used a povray include under the LGPL, they wouldn't need to
distribute the source for the rendered image.  If they used it and changed
the include file itself a bit, they still wouldn't need to distribute their
scene file, only the modification to the original LGPLed include file.  Of
course, what is to be considered modification in the context of povray is
open to debate:  is simply scaling an include file provided object a
modification from the original?  I'd say not, but maybe someone could say
otherwise...

Point is:  if people want to sell their work and not disclose the creative
process they've taken, fine.  LGPLed include files wouldn't hamper it.


Post a reply to this message

From: Chris Cason
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: 30 Nov 2006 06:38:30
Message: <456ec2b6@news.povray.org>
My comments:

Creative Commons sounds useful and could be a way to go. I haven't looked at
what implications it has in detail though.

GPL would be out since anyone using a GPL'd include in their scene could
potentially then have to release their entire scene under the GPL. Whatever
license is chosen must not have the effect of coercing associated works into
the same license. LGPL might be a possibility.

For include files we basically (it seems to me) have several broad categories:

  a) Purely declarative includes, such as colors.inc;
  b) Functional (but still declarative) includes, such as for example
     a macro that given a location and time returns the position of the sun;
  c) 'Artistic' includes; by this I mean an include file that provides some
     sort of object, or a texture/material/etc. Basically something that we
     would categorize as more the work of an artist than a programmer.
and
  d) Combinations of the above - e.g. a tree growing include could be a
     combination of (b) and (c) above.

The reason I make this distinction is that traditionally art and code have
been considered different things and generally have different licences. In
POV-Ray, the two tend to merge since SDL is a co-ordinated blend of both art
and function.

It may be that there is no one existing license (other than POV's own) that
fits all our needs. However in a pinch we could probably say that any POV
source file is considered program code since SDL is what we parse, and as
such a program-oriented license may be more suitable. But if so, not one that
refers exclusively to 'executables' since the includes aren't that.

-- Chris Cason


Post a reply to this message

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: 30 Nov 2006 06:55:00
Message: <web.456ec5606ea74aa9f2ff13290@news.povray.org>
Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoopovrayorg> wrote:
> The reason I make this distinction is that traditionally art and code have
> been considered different things and generally have different licences. In
> POV-Ray, the two tend to merge since SDL is a co-ordinated blend of both art
> and function.

yes and there lies its beauty. :)

> However in a pinch we could probably say that any POV
> source file is considered program code since SDL is what we parse,

actually, povray source includes code and data like any other programming
languages.  And data is content really external to code itself, like sounds
or images or, in this case, descriptions of images.  Source code in SDL --
with full control flow structures and even macros implementing clever and
complex algorithms and all -- is there just to make such artistic
descriptions possible.

So, yes, i'd say your distinction is spot-on and indeed mostly declarative
includes perhaps could be licensed with something like CC rather than
software oriented licenses...


Post a reply to this message

From: Christoph Hormann
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: 30 Nov 2006 08:40:17
Message: <456edf41$1@news.povray.org>
Chris Cason schrieb:
> [...]
> 
> It may be that there is no one existing license (other than POV's own) that
> fits all our needs. However in a pinch we could probably say that any POV
> source file is considered program code since SDL is what we parse, and as
> such a program-oriented license may be more suitable. But if so, not one that
> refers exclusively to 'executables' since the includes aren't that.

The central question this all leads to is if a rendered image is a 
derived work of the scene (and all include files) it is generated from. 
    I think (but IANAL) that for this it would be necessary that some 
aspect of the scene/include files that is subject to copyright (usually 
this requires a minimum level of originality and individuality) to be 
still present in the rendered image.  How exactly this is defined 
differs between Copyright laws - see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality

A good example for a scene element where this is certainly the case is a 
hand modelled mesh, like for example a Poser figure.  An example where 
this most likely cannot be assumed is something like a random placement 
system for objects - the resulting random positions which are the only 
thing still visible in the image are certainly not copyrightable.  But 
in most cases the situation is less clear and will even differ between 
states and copyright laws.

To uniformly handle all types of include file a special license would be 
needed that regulates any use of a file no matter how exactly the law 
sees this use.  One option that would not require designing a new 
license would be to use an existing one intended for programs (like the 
GPL) and explicitly exclude images made using the files from the 
restrictions of the license.  This would essentially allow unlimited use 
for creating images (including commercial use) but would still impose 
the license conditions on any modifications and distribution of the 
include file itself.

-- Christoph


Post a reply to this message

From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: 30 Nov 2006 09:18:33
Message: <456ee839$1@news.povray.org>
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> schreef in bericht 
news:web.456e1f276ea74aa9b1e716f90@news.povray.org...
>
> "Chris B" <c_b### [at] btconnectcomnospam> wrote:
>> I think it's really picking a level that we feel won't deter potential
>> contributors but that also won't stop the community from modifying and
>> redistributing contributions, particularly back through this collection.
>
> This thread has got the least attention from the others.  My guess is that
> people either don't mind copyrights or mind too much to even consider
> sharing their works under suspiciously named licenses with lots of boredom
> legalese...
>

There might be another reason, and that is that it is not really easy for 
non-native speakers to fully appreciate the ins and outs of the legal 
language in English. It is already hard enough in one's own idiom. I am 
pretty sure that a lot of people here are deeply interested, but (like me) 
they got lost pretty fast, and 'scarred' to go further. It is good to have 
some people able to sort through this, and personally I deeply appreciate 
your efforts, but I feel too that I am not really able to contribute 
something really except by mumbling voicelessly :-)
Keep up the good work!! I think it is very important for many of us (silent) 
onlookers!!

Thomas


Post a reply to this message

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: 30 Nov 2006 11:25:00
Message: <web.456f05996ea74aa93976a8750@news.povray.org>
"Thomas de Groot" <t.d### [at] internlDOTnet> wrote:
> There might be another reason, and that is that it is not really easy for
> non-native speakers to fully appreciate the ins and outs of the legal
> language in English.

hmm, but you speak even portuguese! :)

but yes, good point.

I hope that at least silent onlookers vote for or against the few licenses
we're able to sort out after these discussions.  I don't know, some kind of
poll so that we can get a taste of what the vast silent majority are
thinking about... since this is intended to be a collaborative project, i
don't think it's fair to simply impose a license based on what 3 or 4
people think is better...


Post a reply to this message

From: Verm
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: 30 Nov 2006 11:41:34
Message: <456f09be$1@news.povray.org>
Chris B wrote:
> This seems mostly consistent with the clause in the CC Attribution 
> Share-Alike license that "lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work 
> even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their 
> new creations under the identical terms."
> I assume this would mean they could modify your include with the same 
> license on that include, but potentially a different license on other pieces 
> of their own work that they distribute it with. I don't think this would 
> stop them selling their work, which could include your work.
> 
>> I also think the library as a whole should encourage giving credit to
>> the include and the author of the piece that is used, but I don't think
>> it needs to be a term in the license. It might be easier to use an
>> established license, but most of them enforce some display of copyright
>> being kept with the include file.
>>
> 
> The CC Attribution Share-Alike seems to cover that where they say they 
> should 'credit you'

I believe it says they *must* credit you. There is a difference between 
"should" and "must".

I'd be wary of forcing people to give credit. I'd say people should be 
strongly encouraged to give credit but not legally obliged to.

Sometimes people genuinely forget where they originally got code from 
especially if they've heavily hacked it. Also it would get very long 
winded and tedious having to give credit for every author of every item 
in a busy scene if each item was taken from the proposed library and 
each item had been repeatedly modified by different people.

Ideally people should give credit yes, it's disrespectful to the 
original author not to, but I'd not want to force hobbyist POV hackers 
to have to keep track of the provenance of every single line of code.

I'm not at all sure how you'd find, or write, a license that strongly 
encourages people to give credit for any significant contributions 
without forcing acknowledgment of everyone who's ever touched even a 
single line of code of the least significant object.

Sorry not a very helpful post - it seems rather negative, but I do 
really like the idea of an object repository and somehow making it *the* 
official repository. I also agree it would need a common licence.


Post a reply to this message

From: Gilles Tran
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:01:06
Message: <456f0e52$1@news.povray.org>

web.456f05996ea74aa93976a8750@news.povray.org...

> I hope that at least silent onlookers vote for or against the few licenses
> we're able to sort out after these discussions.  I don't know, some kind 
> of
> poll so that we can get a taste of what the vast silent majority are
> thinking about... since this is intended to be a collaborative project, i
> don't think it's fair to simply impose a license based on what 3 or 4
> people think is better...

When I was looking for a license to distribute my SDL code some years ago, 
and after reviewing the various licenses available, I finally chose the 
Creative Commons "By Attribution" license. It seemed the simplest, both for 
me and for the users, particularly for things are both art and software. It 
boils down to "you can do everything you want with my stuff as long as you 
credit me (if I want to)", which is something that anyone can understand. 
OTOH software-specific licenses like the LGPL are much more obscure for 
non-programmers.

G.


Post a reply to this message

From: nemesis
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:20:00
Message: <web.456f124e6ea74aa93976a8750@news.povray.org>
Verm <pov### [at] thirteeendynucom> wrote:
> Sometimes people genuinely forget where they originally got code from
> especially if they've heavily hacked it.

don't worry:  lawyers will remind you! :)

ok, lame joke... next!

> Also it would get very long
> winded and tedious having to give credit for every author of every item
> in a busy scene if each item was taken from the proposed library and
> each item had been repeatedly modified by different people.

Yes, specially having to list people who just modified a few lines of code
rather than created it.  Mind you, this "give credit where credit is due"
provision doesn't exist in the GPL and LGPL licenses because they
understand it would bring such issues in collaborative works:
collaborative work means small contributions are as important as large and
giving credit to everyone is quite like giving credit to no one.

Credit listing in BSD and MIT licenses can grow insane, but at least, they
are hidden in C headers while such listing would indeed have to be compiled
by hand in a text file, say, credits.txt and be released together with the
rendered image.  Of course, a script of sorts, perhaps interfacing with the
Version Control System in charge of the collection, could possibly track the
scene dependencies and generate credits.txt.

> Sorry not a very helpful post

actually, it brought another excellent point to the table.  thank you!


Post a reply to this message

From: Bruno Cabasson
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: 30 Nov 2006 12:25:01
Message: <web.456f13296ea74aa9f5fba6ef0@news.povray.org>
Among the people here who able to contribute and/or manage such a project,
are there some of them who are acustomed with collaborative development on
the Net?

In any case, apart from the licensing issue discussed here, collaboration
means rules, standards, defined process & organisation, and some reliable
'leaders'. How many of us/you/them are likely to be a POV artist/guru AND a
software developper? Coding scenes like we see most often here (and there)
in SDL is not developing (=requirements, specifying, documenting, coding,
testing, delivering, maintaining ...).

What I am sure of, is that POV is quite mature and there is lots of
POV-related stuff available that deserve special attention and that could
be made public in the community (after re-shaping and re-packaging). And I
guess we can find the 'resources' to achieve this.

   Regards.


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.