 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi all,
K3DSurf 0.5.5 is now available (for Linux) with one of the most promising
feature added until now : Isosurfaces support.
The mathematical modelling is a reach world and isosurfaces are (with
parametric objects) one way to explore it.
Right now, you can use the "Deformers" tools( "Scale" and "Twist") to apply
some transformations like twisting and scaling to isosurfaces and export
theses objects for PovRay rendering(it's the only file format supported at
the moment).
Finally, we hope that you will enjoy like we do the beauty of all theses
mathematical creations : even on the shore of the deep sea, we can find
some inetersting objects!!
Thanks,
Taha.
http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=25049
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry for the double post but the news was sent in the wrong
newsgroup...it's now on the news-submissions.
"virtualmeet" <tah### [at] yahoo fr> wrote:
> Hi all,
> K3DSurf 0.5.5 is now available (for Linux) with one of the most promising
> feature added until now : Isosurfaces support.
> The mathematical modelling is a reach world and isosurfaces are (with
> parametric objects) one way to explore it.
> Right now, you can use the "Deformers" tools( "Scale" and "Twist") to apply
> some transformations like twisting and scaling to isosurfaces and export
> theses objects for PovRay rendering(it's the only file format supported at
> the moment).
> Finally, we hope that you will enjoy like we do the beauty of all theses
> mathematical creations : even on the shore of the deep sea, we can find
> some inetersting objects!!
> Thanks,
> Taha.
> http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=25049
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
virtualmeet wrote:
>
> http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=25049
>> Description:
>> K3DSurf is a program to visualize and manipulate
>> Multidimensional surfaces by using Mathematical
>> equations. It's also a "Modeler" for POV-Ray in
>> the area of parametric surfaces.
Some linux distros either refuse to bundle with povray, or have a package
management system that exiles povray out into the same repositories as all
the patent-encumbered mischief. I wonder if this development where KDE
provides more legitimacy to povray will have any effect in this regard.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> legitimacy to povray
... in the sense of legitimacy to the "pure GPL in everything or die"
fanatical crowd ...
Not that povray's "copyrighted freeware" model is in any way dodgy or
shoddy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote in message <44ddf788@news.povray.org>:
> ... in the sense of legitimacy to the "pure GPL in everything or die"
> fanatical crowd ...
I know of no distribution with "pure GPL or die" policy.
> Not that povray's "copyrighted freeware" model is in any way dodgy or
> shoddy.
The problem is: POV-Ray is a very small part of a distribution, and yet its
licence is twice as long as the GPL, and more than twenty times longer than
the BSD licence.
When dealing with hundreds of packages, you can not expect the maintainers
to puzzle over 40+ kilobytes of text for each package, nor expect to have
2^n different DVD layouts depending on whether the packages on it can be
sold in box with documentation and user support, sold for the copy costs,
bundled with magazines, given as coaster, and so on.
So packages licence must be classified in very few boxes: free enough or not
free enough, and maybe not-quite-free-enough-but-not-far.
Have a look at POV-Ray licence: you need written permission just to bundle
it with a magazine...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas George wrote:
> Have a look at POV-Ray licence: you need written permission just to bundle
> it with a magazine...
Which does NOT apply when the bundle is a Linux distribution ... the fact is
a package maintainer should read the license and then make clear that there
is no problem to the distribution maintainers. If the package maintainers
cannot be bothered to read every license of the packages they maintain, then
maybe they should not be maintaining that many. The fact is that various
Linux distribution maintainers are so misinformed about the POV-Ray license
that they make false assertions they could trivially have avoided by just
ONCE reading the license they complain about. It is neither difficult to
understand, nor limiting about the bundling of POV-Ray with a Linux
distribution.
And if _you_ complain about the license, well, if you enjoy your work being
ripped off by huge companies for billions of profits, that is your choice.
It is not that of the POV-Ray developers, and history has unfortunately
taught us that only a license as lengthy as the one we developed over the
years allows everybody to enjoy POV-Ray for free, yet prohibits unethical
types of commercial exploitation. And you would be stunned to what length
such unethical behavior can go, but this is neither the place nor the time
to discuss the POV-Ray license.
You either enjoy the work in the form and under the conditions the POV-Ray
developers decided to distribute it, or you do not. If you do not, bad luck,
but not OUR problem! So *please* do not complain about it to us.
Thorsten, POV-Team, but just stating *MY* opinion
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas George wrote:
> When dealing with hundreds of packages, you can not expect
> the maintainers to puzzle over 40+ kilobytes of text for
> each package,
fair enough. no arg.
>
> I know of no distribution with "pure GPL or die" policy.
>
You need to get out more. SUSE took out the wifi driver from 10.1
arbritrarily at the last moment because it was decided that they weren't
going to ship a non-GPL driver. Wrecking usability for the user with
contempt for the dogma of open source.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote in message <44de0995$1@news.povray.org>:
> Which does NOT apply when the bundle is a Linux distribution ...
That was not true the last time I read the licence. And your are wrong, that
applies when the bundle is a "generally recognised Distribution", which
looks like an attempt for the World Record of Imprecise Legalese.
> It is neither difficult to
> understand, nor limiting about the bundling of POV-Ray with a Linux
> distribution.
The point is not only about the bundling with a Linux distribution. The
inclusion of a package is also a message to the user. When I find a package
in Debian main, I know without reading the licence there are a few things I
am _always_ allowed to do, and this is an information that is useful to me.
Linux distributions are not just about bundling packages, they are also
about allowing service providers to build custom solutions for corporate
clients, for example. They MUST have a precise and compact set of guidelines
about the licence of packages they accept.
> And if _you_ complain about the license, well, if you enjoy your work being
> ripped off by huge companies for billions of profits, that is your choice.
> It is not that of the POV-Ray developers, and history has unfortunately
> taught us that only a license as lengthy as the one we developed over the
> years allows everybody to enjoy POV-Ray for free, yet prohibits unethical
> types of commercial exploitation.
There are ways to prevent most of the "commercial exploitation" while being
compatible with, for example, Debian Free Software Guidelines. Copyleft, for
example.
There is a balance between the freedom you give to the people you like, and
the restrictions you put on the people you do not like. The more
restrictions you put on the latter, the more often you will find situations
that you would approve, but that the wording of the licence forbids.
The choice is yours, but it has consequences, including the non-inclusion in
Linux distributions, which is somewhat a major annoyance.
It is up to you to decide if you would rather ease the life of people who
like your soft and build a community, or fight Big Bad Capitalists.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Greg M. Johnson" wrote in message <44de6136@news.povray.org>:
>> I know of no distribution with "pure GPL or die" policy.
> You need to get out more. SUSE took out the wifi driver from 10.1
> arbritrarily at the last moment because it was decided that they weren't
> going to ship a non-GPL driver. Wrecking usability for the user with
> contempt for the dogma of open source.
Does not SuSE include X.org (X11 license)? OpenSSL (BSD-style licence _with_
the advertising clause, and thus GPL-incompatible)?
The problem with non-GPL kernel modules is not that they are not GPL, it is
that they violate the GPL. You can use them, but the licence of the kernel
forbids to distribute binaries versions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 19:16:56 -0400, Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> You need to get out more. SUSE took out the wifi driver from 10.1
> arbritrarily at the last moment because it was decided that they weren't
> going to ship a non-GPL driver. Wrecking usability for the user with
> contempt for the dogma of open source.
Nicholas provided a very good summary of why the decision was made.
There's also a very good interview with Greg KH (of SUSE) about why
non-GPL kernel modules are bad. I've talked with Greg about this
directly, and the move makes perfect sense.
It's not a question of dogma; it's a question of supportability. If the
kernel crashes and there are non-GPL kernel modules in memory, it's
impossible to fix the problem because there's a part of the kernel the
developers have no access to the code for. It doesn't make sense for
a company that supports the kernel to that level to ship things they can't
support - it muddies the support policy.
In the case of the Madwifi drivers (which are the affected drivers - and
the ones I need to use for my Thinkpad), getting them into the system
isn't a problem - madwifi.org has a channel that can be subscribed to
using ZLM or YaST in order to install them.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
