 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
