Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> Tom York wrote:
> Which nobody (for the major remaining bugs) has done either <sigh>
>
>  Thorsten

It's difficult to tell what's being actively worked on and what isn't. I admit
I've so far suggested a solution for only one defect, and that was fixed
independently by the POV-team anyway, so investigating it was a bit of a waste
of time on my part.

Additionally, some of the known issues require executive decisions - for
example, the preferred behaviour for media and transparency.

Tom

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> Alexandre DENIS wrote:
>>  It was not
>> possible with POV-Ray since source code was not available at the time I
>> needed it (in 2006-2007).
> 
> Nonsense! The 3.6 final release source code has been available all long.

I mean: up-to-date code (3.7). It is useless to work on outdated code to
develop a patch that couldn't be applied to the latest code.

-a.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:16:18 -0400, Nicolas George wrote:

> Jim Henderson  wrote in message <487e7d38@news.povray.org>:
>> Shareware authors get their software included in magazines and such
>> fairly regularly - all that has to happen is the publisher asks
>> permission (or the author asks the publisher to include it on a
>> compilation disc).
> 
> Ok. But the point of libre software is not the freedom of the original
> author, it is the freedom of other people.

I disagree.  If an author wants to limit distribution of their software, 
that's *absolutely* their right.

> Author of shareware control the diffusion of their works, that implies
> they limit this diffusion. That is, of course, necessary if they want to
> benefit from it. But the raw result is that the software is less
> available than it could be.

And that's the author's choice = my point.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for this info, Gilles - I'm going to have to read it again 
tomorrow or this weekend (when I'm more awake).

I do think that the copyright laws in the US are a bit draconian at 
times, though - and I do think that Disney is a bit of an extreme case 
(yet it is what's most often cited for extending copyright terms here in 
the US).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas George wrote:
> If you happen to be wondering why there are so little contributions to
> POV-Ray, just look in a mirror: that is precisely your attitude that makes
> them go away.

I've just started reading this thread.

I apologise if Thorsten comes across somewhat strongly as a team member.
That's just his personality ;>

As for your comments and those of others, I'm in the process of reading and
will respond shortly.

-- Chris Cason
   POV Team co-ordinator

Post a reply to this message

Alexandre DENIS wrote:
> Specialist in parallel programming would have been a great addition in the
> POV-Team, but the current strategy let me believe that external
> contributors are not welcome.

External contributors are welcome, despite appearance.

The large structural changes that the source code went through and our
attempts to get it stable were in part the reason we didn't have it
available. Though really that's not much of an excuse and I accept that we
should have put it out there earlier.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson  wrote in message <48800f62$1@news.povray.org>:
> I disagree.  If an author wants to limit distribution of their software, 
> that's *absolutely* their right.

That is their right, of course, but the software is no longer libre.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas George wrote:
> Do you not agree that, in order to attract contributors, you need to make
> them feel welcome?

Please note that Thorsten speaks for himself when posting here (unless he
explicitly says otherwise). As do I, for that matter. I apologise if you
and others do not feel welcome; I unfortunately don't have time to monitor
the forums closely. Thorsten's approach and style are often combative but
as I say, he's not speaking for the project officially.

So, this post is on behalf of the project: developers are welcome to
contribute. We can't always take contributions (the megapov days taught us
that) but anyone wanting to improve the program in a meaningful way is
welcome here. Having forked versions in which new ideas can be tried out is
a good way to handle these patches and I'm happy to formally support this
(by providing server resources, forums, revision control, whatever else) if
folks are interested.

-- Chris Cason
   Team co-ordinator

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> So, this post is on behalf of the project: developers are welcome

And this post is on behalf of myself:

I accept that not releasing the source earlier was unwise. It wasn't a
conscious decision per se (time just got away from me), but either way the
fault rests with me and I apologise to those who wished for earlier access.

I am seriously considering opening our revision control system for public
read access. The main issue stopping me is that I don't want to revisit the
same sort of issues that people flame us for already: they don't like our
type of 'free'. We use Perforce for revision control, which has free (as in
no cost to use) client software*, but is not Free Software such as SVN is.
I don't expect a requirement to have to install non "Free Software" to
access the repo would be very popular, and frankly I don't want to have to
deal with the inevitable complaints (as Linus's experience with a
proprietary SCCS showed).

While I could migrate to SVN (there is a p42svn tool), I'd prefer to wait
until 3.7 is finished if this is to be done (note I use SVN daily at work
and am in a good position to compare the two - I find I prefer Perforce).

I am looking into the logistics of providing a parallel svn repo that is
automatically kept up to date with the perforce one via nightly runs of
p42svn or some other similar system. I don't think this would be difficult.
Or if there was really enough interest from potential developers to make it
worthwhile, I would bite the bullet and change the project over to SVN
immediately - but given the content of this thread I am certainly not
holding my breath regarding the latter.

-- Chris


* The server normally costs money (if you want more than two users) but
  Perforce has kindly provided us with a free-of-cost license for most of
  the past decade under their policy of supporting open source projects.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason  wrote in message <48808a99@news.povray.org>:
> Please note that Thorsten speaks for himself when posting here (unless he
> explicitly says otherwise). As do I, for that matter. I apologise if you
> and others do not feel welcome

I do not think you need to apologize. And neither does Thorsten: everyone is
entitled to have his own vision of what the development of a project should
be.

Anyway, your message was very much welcome in this thread to calm things
down. Thanks a lot.

Post a reply to this message