 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <44df19e3@news.povray.org>, nicolas$george@salle-s.org
says...
> > as well as the SCO "case" against Linux, you
> > cannot honestly say the licenses used for Linux are clear, or prevent a
buse.
> > If they cannot prevent a three year multi-million dollar trial, they cl
early
> > have a problem. Our license may not be perfect, but neither are those c
ore
> > Linux "Copyleft" licenses you are so vigorously promoting.
>
> The reason there is a three-year multi-million dollars trial behind Linux
and
> not behind POV-Ray is not that its license is more badly phrased -- by th
e
> way, I know that the FSF has a bunch of lawyers working on the GPL; I won
der
> what is the legal background of the actual author of POV-Ray's license? -
-
> but because the market value of Linux is much higher, both because it hol
ds
> a more tactical position (fewer people need raytracers than operating
> systems) and because of random circumstances.
>
> But if it came that, for example, a big company started backing up POV-Ra
y
> for the special effects of big bucks movies, and started taking market sh
are
> from the costly proprietary softwares used nowadays, then POV-Ray would
> likely have its multi-million dollars trial too.
>
No, you are only partly right, the reason for the case may be money
ultimately, but it hinges, "a lot", on claims that IBM stole code from a
version of UNIX to build their Linux version, or even more silly, that
Linux in general somehow does this. Its a case of, "Its just too
coincidental to us that both our airplanes have swept wings and landing
gear, which those other guys all use strait wings and skids, I think you
stole our ideas for those things!" Its pure absolute and total BS, but
had Linux been written to "not" duplicate the UNIX environment, and run
its software, there wouldn't be any grounds to contest (it would also be
less useful of course). The GPL isn't the problem, its the contention
that a violation of SCO's proprietary licenses happened, regardless of
the license that IBM happened to be using.
--
void main () {
call functional_code()
else
call crash_windows();
}
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas George wrote:
> The major problem with POV-Ray's license is the non-commercial clauses. That
> is what is preventing POV-Ray from being included in Linux distributions.
This is simply not true, as I pointed out before. Repeating it does not make
your statement true.
>> - A few years ago some company started putting POV-Ray on a CD and selling
>> it as modeler solution. There was no mention that POV-Ray is a free
>> download, yet people were asked to pay iirc $20 for a CD hardly containing
>> anything justifying the amount paid for the CD. Obviously this was a case of
<snip>
> Of course, it upsets you specifically. But that is psychological. It is the
You are wrong. It upset all POV-team members. The problem was that it
exploited some points that could be interpreted as loopholes in the POV-Ray
license as it does allow CD distribution if done for nominal copying costs.
The packaging was one major problem, which mislead the customer to believe
they acquired a commercial software, and with only our contact information
available inside, the same "clueless" buyer could believe we also made the
CDs. Either way, the problem was not "psychological" but that the company
who made those CDs violated the whole "spirit of the license" by bending
what it allowed as far as they could. It was clear they had legal advice on
what they did, even though it still probably was not legal, but only an
(expensive) trial would have established that. Yet, we do not generally want
to sue people, we have a lot of better things to do if one lets us - we just
love to work on POV-Ray and the legal matters are an unfortunate necessary
evil we also have to deal with. So the license was changed (with POV-Ray 3.5
iirc) to plug this hole completely and in a legally watertight manner.
In another message Nicolas George wrote:
> Which makes me wonder how they
> managed to change the license for the 3.6 version.
The license was rewritten to say in essence the same, just in a more
organized fashion and by a lawyer. It is still more or less the same
license, and still includes the same provisions.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote in message <44e01a4a$1@news.povray.org>:
>> The major problem with POV-Ray's license is the non-commercial clauses. That
>> is what is preventing POV-Ray from being included in Linux distributions.
> This is simply not true, as I pointed out before. Repeating it does not make
> your statement true.
I am sorry, but for this particular point, that is you who did not read what
I wrote.
You pointed that there is a clause allowing commercial use for
distributions, and that is perfectly right. But there is still a general
non-commercial clause. But distributions do not require just the right to
distribute, even commercially. They need *guidelines*, which are both a
necessity when handling thousands of packages, and a service to the users.
The non-commercial clause breaks these guidelines.
> You are wrong. It upset all POV-team members.
So much for the singular/plural distinction in English.
> The packaging was one major problem, which mislead the customer to believe
> they acquired a commercial software, and with only our contact information
> available inside, the same "clueless" buyer could believe we also made the
> CDs.
This is a different question, and, as I said, no one has any problem with
requiring spectacular responsibility claims from third-parties distributors.
> Either way, the problem was not "psychological" but that the company
> who made those CDs violated the whole "spirit of the license" by bending
> what it allowed as far as they could.
Yes, they did. But *why do you care*?
More specifically, why do you care so much that you make installing POV-Ray
so much more difficult for thousands of users?
In others words, what is your order of priorities?
[ ] make POV-Ray a good soft (achieved)
[ ] prevent bad guys from using it
[ ] allow the community to use it as comfortably as possible
Please, could you order these items?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas George wrote:
> The non-commercial clause breaks these guidelines.
Which is not true, and which you refuse to understand. The license is
obvious and does not have the problems you just imagine. As such, there is
no point in continuing to argue with you.
Thorsten
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas George wrote:
> The choice is yours
Actually it's not, as we have explained many times. We have no choice about
our current license.
While I don't necessarily agree with everything said in the below-referenced
article, it is a good enough introduction to the basic concepts:
http://software.newsforge.com/software/06/01/17/201221.shtml
-- Chris Cason
POV-Team
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas George wrote:
> http://www.povray.org/povlegal-3.5.html >. Which makes me wonder how they
> managed to change the license for the 3.6 version.
No-where does anything say we cannot change the license *at all*. We just
can't change the fundamental precepts upon which it is based.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas George wrote:
>> You are wrong. It upset all POV-team members.
>
> So much for the singular/plural distinction in English.
I thought this was a discussion of the license, not English? And if you do
wish to discuss English, may I point out that from the point of view of this
particular English-as-a-first-language speaker, Thorsten's usage was quite
correct.
E.g.
> It upset all POV-team members <------- Past tense
> It upsets all POV-team members <------- Present tense
> It continues to upset all POV-team members <------- Present tense also
As you can see, the word 'upset' can be used legitimately in both past and
present tense.
-- Chris
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote in message <44e0585b$1@news.povray.org>:
>> The non-commercial clause breaks these guidelines.
> Which is not true, and which you refuse to understand. The license is
> obvious and does not have the problems you just imagine.
Yes it has. Take a look at the Guidelines for Debian, for example:
# The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or
# giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
# distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license
# may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
(<URL: http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines >, point 1)
The title 2.1 of POV-Ray Distribution Licence is not enough, since it only
applies to a "generally recognised Distribution of a recognised operating
system", which is not "any party".
The title 3.1 is not enough, since it does not cover all cases.
No other title of POV-Ray's license grants rights to distribute.
Therefore, POV-Ray's license is not compatible with point 1 of the Debian
Free Software Guidelines. QED.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas George wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich wrote in message <44e0585b$1@news.povray.org>:
>>> The non-commercial clause breaks these guidelines.
>> Which is not true, and which you refuse to understand. The license is
>> obvious and does not have the problems you just imagine.
>
> Yes it has.
*plonk*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, as I understand it, a slew of coders have contributed code over the
years; you don't have the legal authority to set up a new license without
their permission; some of these contributors have disappeared into the
woodwork. You might be able to get away with a new license, but wisely
choose to avoid the legal risk of someone re-emerging from the woodwork and
suing you.
I wonder however to what extent you could adopt some other license for one
of your re-writes (4.0?). There must be a license which would not only
protect your work against the commercial exploitation you rightly are
concerned about but also is a document that the software (linux!) world is
already familiar with (four examples I believe were listed earlier in the
thread). That is what I'd like to see.
Chris Cason <del### [at] deletethistoo povrayorg> wrote:
> Nicolas George wrote:
> > The choice is yours
>
> Actually it's not, as we have explained many times. We have no choice about
> our current license.
>
> While I don't necessarily agree with everything said in the below-referenced
> article, it is a good enough introduction to the basic concepts:
>
> http://software.newsforge.com/software/06/01/17/201221.shtml
>
> -- Chris Cason
> POV-Team
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
