 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapg fr> wrote in message
news:4576ed96$1@news.povray.org...
> news: 4576e360$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> Maybe I phrased this a little innaccurately. It seemed to me that the
>> majority considered that requiring credit to be given (Attribution) was
>> not practical or necessary for the collection. This seems to rule out the
>> CC licenses, the least restrictive of which still requires attribution
>> (although there is some text that introduces the concept of
>> 'reasonableness' appropriate to the medium).
>
> The conditions in the CC licenses can be waived if necessary, so I don't
> think the credit is much an issue.
I hadn't noticed before that the CC Attribution Deed does indeed say that
"Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the
copyright holder".
However, the Legal Code for the CC Attribution license does state that "No
term or provision of this License shall be deemed waived and no breach
consented to unless such waiver or consent shall be in writing and signed by
the party to be charged with such waiver or consent." .
It also says "This License constitutes the entire agreement between the
parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings,
agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here."
If there is a way to explicitly waive the attribution clause of the CC
Attribution license without having to manage signatures then this could be a
great way forward.
> I'm really under the impression that too much importance is given to the
> credit issue anyway. I've worked on scenes that used a lot of foreign
> material and credit was never a problem. We're talking POV-Ray scenes made
> by mostly individual artists, not large-scale F/OSS projects involving
> project teams and hundreds of dependencies.
>
Well, I think the only importance in the issue of credit is that we don't
want to place onerous and difficult to satisfy requirements on people
maintaining this collection in the future. So we're looking to find a way of
'not' mandating stuff, while trying to reduce the risk that anyone can
interfere with the freedoms that we're giving.
> I can only repeat what I've said in a previous post, which is that for
> non-programmers (at least for me...) the LGPL and others are completely
> abstruse and add some unecessary burden to the whole process. As someone
> who could want to reuse some snippet of code and possibly redistribute it,
> the CC-By is simple and clear enough. I can't say the same with a license
> that requires digging in a lengthy document that's using both legal and
> developer lingo (in a foreign language) to understand what one can and
> cannot do.
>
I agree. The LGPL terminology is difficult to interpret, particularly within
our intended context. The Legal Code for the CC Attribution license is also
quite heavy going, but seems easier to interpret within the more artistic
context that we need. One of the nice things about CC is that they have the
Deeds that put things in more straight forward terms.
Looking again at the CC site, there is also a CC LGPL license that I'd never
noticed before. If I understand correctly, this is the LGPL accompanied by a
CC human readable Deed. I don't know if this helps at all.
> G.
>
Regards,
Chris B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris B wrote:
> One question open in my mind (because IANAL), is, if the image generated
> becomes the property of the user, is there any danger that someone could
> incorporate our works in a way that could prevent others from using it. For
> example, could they use the image of a contributed object as part of a
> trademark, or in an advert that associates the object with a well-known
> product and thereby constrains people from using anything resembling their
> trademark or any image that might be associated with their brand?'
>
> Regards,
> Chris B.
>
>
(IANAL but I could play one on TV)
Considering how much work some companies put into keeping trademarks
from being diluted, I doubt that a corporate lawyer would use an
established object from a publicly available library that was
copyrighted by someone else.
No one sane would attempt to use some brand name can of soda from
another company as a trademark. They may have a license to use it, but
they do not have the copyright to it.
Worst case would be that someone contributes something that they later
sell to a company to use as their trademark. However, if all the license
stuff is in order, people using the library have a perpetual and
non-exclusive license to use that object.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sabrina Kilian" <ykg### [at] vtedu> wrote in message
news:45772c0e$1@news.povray.org...
> Chris B wrote:
>> One question open in my mind (because IANAL), is, if the image generated
>> becomes the property of the user, is there any danger that someone could
>> incorporate our works in a way that could prevent others from using it.
>> For
>> example, could they use the image of a contributed object as part of a
>> trademark, or in an advert that associates the object with a well-known
>> product and thereby constrains people from using anything resembling
>> their
>> trademark or any image that might be associated with their brand?'
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris B.
>>
>>
>
> (IANAL but I could play one on TV)
> Considering how much work some companies put into keeping trademarks
> from being diluted, I doubt that a corporate lawyer would use an
> established object from a publicly available library that was
> copyrighted by someone else.
>
> No one sane would attempt to use some brand name can of soda from
> another company as a trademark. They may have a license to use it, but
> they do not have the copyright to it.
>
> Worst case would be that someone contributes something that they later
> sell to a company to use as their trademark. However, if all the license
> stuff is in order, people using the library have a perpetual and
> non-exclusive license to use that object.
I guess you're right. I think maybe that reading all this legal gobbledegook
over the last couple of weeks has made me a little paranoid.
Regards,
Chris B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis schrieb:
>
> hmm? Why is generated image licensing a concern? Just to draw an example
> from programming languages and environments: most, if not all, compilers
> do not place any limitations on what kind of license the generated
> binaries/executables should be under. It means you can use a compiler
> licensed under the GPL, say, GCC, and still license the generated
> executable for your source code under some proprietary license of your
> choice.
Please read what i wrote in:
Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:40:19 +0100
From: Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
Newsgroups: povray.general
For all discussed licenses (both software licenses and CC) this depends
on if the image can be regarded as derived works on the include files.
And as illustrated there are definitely cases where this is the case and
there are definitely cases where this isn't.
Concerning LGPL - you should keep in mind that this would allow anyone
to integrate the covered include files into different 3D packages (by
translating into a different language) and distribute them as a closed
product. This will be difficult in some cases (for example when
POV-Ray's procedural patterns are used) but will be fairly straight away
for example for a tree generator. I don't regard this possibility as
bad per se but everyone considering using such a license should keep
that in mind. Trying to avoid this would suggest using the CC-'share
alike' licenses. In some cases this will of course impose significant
unintended restrictions to the images using the file (see above).
-- Christoph
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris B" <c_b### [at] btconnectcomnospam> wrote in message
news:4576c842$1@news.povray.org...
> I'll attempt to summarise the discussions from this 'licensing' thread so
> far and to draw some conclusions. It seems to me that we're moving towards
> a general consensus on the main issues, so if we can address any remaining
> concerns then we should hopefully be able to draw this part of the
> discussion to a close pretty soon. Please feel free to comment if you
> think I've got stuff wrong or if you just disagree with it.
>
There don't seem to have been any postings on this subject for a couple of
days. I'm not sure whether that means we've reached a concensus or whether
everyones just hacked off with the discussion.
I'll assume it means that we've reached a concensus unless:
1. anyone can suggest a clever way of waiving the 'Attribution' clause of
the Creative Commons Attribution license without requiring us to manage
waiver signatures, or
2. anyone has an alternative license that would better suit our needs,
It seems to me that we're down to using LGPL with a statement to clarify
that images generated using contributions to the collection become the
property of the user, even if they're pretty close/identical to what you get
when you just render the SDL provided.
I would suggest that we use the CC LGPL version, because it incorporates a
human readable deed.
Regards,
Chris B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > nemesis schrieb:
> > hmm? Why is generated image licensing a concern?
> Please read what i wrote in:
> Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:40:19 +0100
> From: Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> Newsgroups: povray.general
Yes, i've read about the threshold of originality. Well, i think if we dig
too much deep we're going nowhere. Source code licensing is as far as i'll
go.
> For all discussed licenses (both software licenses and CC) this depends
> on if the image can be regarded as derived works on the include files.
I really don't like this generated image licensing at all. What if someone
sees a cool povray image (not source) and recreates it in Blender and
renders it in yafray almost matching the original lighting, colors and
camera positioning and angles? Isn't that the same as a povray render of a
real world Volkwagen? If someone just releases the jpg how can we now if
they are ripping from a povray include file description of a 3D model or
have come up with something of their own?
This is why i think it's best for us to just keep on source code
licensing...
> Concerning LGPL - you should keep in mind that this would allow anyone
> to integrate the covered include files into different 3D packages (by
> translating into a different language) and distribute them as a closed
> product.
That's the purpose of the LGPL of course: to allow unrestricted *use* of
the libraries by anyone.
Still, isn't translating the include file -- say, the algorithm behind a
complex macro -- to another language a derived work itself? If so, the
community loses nothing from the company incorporating them, since they are
obligued by copyright law governing the LGPL license terms to give back the
source to the modification itself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris B" <c_b### [at] btconnectcomnospam> wrote:
> I'm not sure whether that means we've reached a concensus or whether
> everyones just hacked off with the discussion.
I'd vote for having a summary of the discussed licensing issues and options
for licenses and posting a poll about it in the povray website main page.
Like:
Read this thread [here] and choose a license for the povray include file
collection:
(a) - Creative Commons by attribution
(b) - LGPL
etc...
But then again, mindless vandals would make a lot of noise without
significantly contributing to the discussion...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
>
> Yes, i've read about the threshold of originality. Well, i think if we dig
> too much deep we're going nowhere. Source code licensing is as far as i'll
> go.
If you don't address the issue that for some kinds on include files
using them results in creating derivate works and for some it does not
you will end up with a license that means different things for different
files and that has an unclear meaning for most of them. This is the
case *for all licenses discussed so far* although you would of course
always be on the safe side if you regard the image as a derived work.
If you want the use of the include files in a scene render to be
completely unrestricted the way to go would be to create a wrapper
license that defines 'use' (like for example rendering of a scene
#including the file) and puts all other uses (and only those) under one
of the discussed licenses. This kind of resembles the way the POV-Ray
license is designed (with separate use, distribution and source code
license texts).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Landscape of the week:
http://www.imagico.de/ (Last updated 15 Oct. 2006)
MegaPOV with mechanics simulation: http://megapov.inetart.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
it would help make things clear if you addressed how image licensing would
cope with the following:
What if someone sees a cool povray image (not source) and recreates it in
Blender and renders it in yafray almost matching the original lighting,
colors and camera positioning and angles? Isn't that also the same as a
povray render of a real world Volkwagen? Can Volkswagen sue you for design
likeliness? If someone just releases the jpg how can we now if they are
ripping from a povray include file description of a 3D model or have come
up with something of their own?
I think limiting usage of generated images would be worse than licensing the
include file sources under the GPL, which would still permit commercial
usage as long as sources are distributed with the binary. Why would people
people use an include file in the first place if they can't use it to
generate an image?
Perhaps you should clarify in what way such limitation is regarded. Is it
just a matter of attributing credit to the original author? Is it
prohibition of generated images for use in commercial products?
One of the reasons i'd like to see povray include files improved is so that
people can actually use povray for commercial use indeed. Like a designer
or architect designing scenes with it rather than VRay or something...
Anyway, i'll let it up to you guys to decide on such thorny issues. I'm
just a software programmer and source code is the only thing that matters
to me. Only thing i know is that GPLed GCC don't limits what license i put
on generated binaries...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Nemesis,
I may be wrong, but I think we're all strenuously agreeing with each other
on this. I think we're all saying that we want people to be able to use
generated images in any way they want.
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.457c97716ea74aa9662fe7250@news.povray.org...
> it would help make things clear if you addressed how image licensing would
> cope with the following:
>
The problem is that if we don't specifically define that we want people to
be able to use the generated images, they don't, by default, get any rights
to do so.
> What if someone sees a cool povray image (not source) and recreates it in
> Blender and renders it in yafray almost matching the original lighting,
> colors and camera positioning and angles? Isn't that also the same as a
> povray render of a real world Volkwagen? Can Volkswagen sue you for
> design
> likeliness?
>
I think this was covered by someone in this thread and the answer is that
yes, there are circumstances where Volkswagen could theoretically sue you,
although, in the majority of circumstances they probably wouldn't unless
your image risks bringing their brand into disrepute. You start pumping out
something resembling a well known cartoon character and you might be more
likely to attract the lawyers.
> If someone just releases the jpg how can we now if they are
> ripping from a povray include file description of a 3D model or have come
> up with something of their own?
>
That's a little beside the point. We're trying to avoid people having to
stand up in front of a judge to prove anything.
> I think limiting usage of generated images would be worse than licensing
> the
> include file sources under the GPL, which would still permit commercial
> usage as long as sources are distributed with the binary. Why would
> people
> people use an include file in the first place if they can't use it to
> generate an image?
>
That's the point. If we don't explicitly cover it, we limit the usage. By
covering it we can permit people to use the images.
> Perhaps you should clarify in what way such limitation is regarded. Is it
> just a matter of attributing credit to the original author? Is it
> prohibition of generated images for use in commercial products?
>
> One of the reasons i'd like to see povray include files improved is so
> that
> people can actually use povray for commercial use indeed. Like a designer
> or architect designing scenes with it rather than VRay or something...
>
That's where I think we're all agreeing.
> Anyway, i'll let it up to you guys to decide on such thorny issues. I'm
> just a software programmer and source code is the only thing that matters
> to me. Only thing i know is that GPLed GCC don't limits what license i
> put
> on generated binaries...
>
This is probably where the missunderstanding originates, because a binary
conventionaly refers to assembled application code, not to what you generate
with it.
Images would not (at least not in my experience) be classed as binaries and
are therefore not explicitly covered by the GPL or LGPL.
By 'wrapping' the license in a statement to clarify the use of the images,
we can make the situation clear and permit people to use the generated
images any way they want.
I hope this clarifies things.
Regards
Chris B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
