 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Attwood
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 12 Jul 2008 19:58:57
Message: <48794541$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Now, you just said POV-4 will be GPLv3. Jerome said he thinks it won't.
> Any better place to ask or *read*? Is the code for POV-4 available
> somewhere to review and help with the effort?
Actually I think POV-4 will be LGPL which is "freer" than GPLv3,
correct me if I'm wrong.
As for "Open Source" I'm not sure what manner of source
code publishing is considered to pass muster by the lawyers.
Fairly current (February) beta source for 3.7 v25b is available at
http://www.povray.org/beta/source/
POV probably could benefit from a code repository though...
Setting up VS C++ 2005 Express (free "beer") to
use the Zoom library is non-trivial, so it might be good to
figure out a way to patch the compiler with libraries and
stuff from a repository. Eventually that should take some of
the pressure off of Chris Cason, who is doing the majority
of new code.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Alessio Sangalli
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 12 Jul 2008 20:49:36
Message: <48795120$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> POV probably could benefit from a code repository though...
Well, definitely... that would be great...
> Setting up VS C++ 2005 Express (free "beer") to
What's wrong with gcc + one of the many editors around?
> the pressure off of Chris Cason, who is doing the majority
> of new code.
Question. I am not sure why windows and linux (unix) releases are
'disconnected'. Is this due to special enhancements provided by the
windows GUI?
bye
as
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Tim Attwood
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 12 Jul 2008 23:02:02
Message: <4879702a$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Question. I am not sure why windows and linux (unix) releases are
> 'disconnected'. Is this due to special enhancements provided by the
> windows GUI?
Yeah, I think it's something like that. (Boost not Zoom, oops)
http://www.boost.org/
http://www.nabble.com/Patch-for-building-Boost-with-GCC-4.4.0-td17982932.html
POV for Windows uses Codemax for the editor, plus there's settings
in registry, so there needs to be a bit of alternate code to build
POV for Linux.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trf de> wrote:
> Alessio Sangalli wrote:
> > but any plan to make POV-ray free software? What is the problem?
>
> Get a clue by first reading the relevant newsgroups and you would not have
> to troll around with already answered questions: First, POV-Ray is free
> unless you apply your definition of "free software" (whatever it may be, you
> choice, so it is as random as that of everybody else), second, a GPL 3
> relicensing will happen in the future as was already said before.
>
> So what exactly is your problem??? - I can tell you: You did not _read_, but
> just want to cause arguments about the definition of "free software".
>
> *plonk*
>
> Thorsten, POV-Team
If you had added the relevant information to the documentation or wiki, then
there would be no need for anyone to troll for already answered questions. If
the topic is so popular that it gets raised repeatedly, then you should take
additional steps so that the information is quickly and easily accessible.
There's no reason for you to be so crude and disrespectful.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12 Jul 2008 11:03:53 -0400, Nicolas George <nicolas$george@salle-s.org>
wrote:
>Warp wrote in message <4878c2d7@news.povray.org>:
>> The word "free" doesn't change its meaning if you attach the word
>> "software" to it
>
>Yes it does: since there was no common use of this particular pair of words
>before the FSF, it becomes a trademark.
For the last twenty years, or so, I've understood free software to have no cost.
I'm with Warp on this one.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: "Jérôme M. Berger"
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 13 Jul 2008 01:26:21
Message: <487991fd$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Alessio Sangalli wrote:
| Now, you just said POV-4 will be GPLv3. Jerome said he thinks it
won't.
| Any better place to ask or *read*? Is the code for POV-4 available
| somewhere to review and help with the effort?
|
Well, I thought I remembered a discussion in which it was said that
POV would not move to GPL, although the precise license wasn't
determined yet and things may have changed since. However Thorsten
is supposed to be the official spokesperson for the POV-team so I
guess his words carry more weight than mine here :)
Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
| mailto:jeb### [at] freefr | ICQ: 238062172 |
| http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkh5klkACgkQd0kWM4JG3k/dEACfQNG8eHeO+Q9Giq2erwIohosy
z3UAnjgoVq4zI84gaS97tCO56hAa0nst
=pPDh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: "Jérôme M. Berger"
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 13 Jul 2008 01:37:04
Message: <48799480$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Warp wrote:
| "J�r�me M. Berger" <jeb### [at] freefr> wrote:
|> | "Free", in common parlance, means "you don't have to pay
anything to
|> | use it". Period. POV-Ray *is* free. You don't have to pay anything.
|> |
|> That is actually the twelfth (!) definition in my dictionary
|> (Collins Cobuild). The first eleven definitions deal with free as in
|> "freedom" (i.e not a prisoner or not restricted)
|
| Which doesn't make sense with software, because a program is not
a person.
|
| Can you say, for example, that a book is "free", according to those
| definitions? What would that even mean? That it's not imprisoned?
|
| No, if you say that a book is free, it means you don't have to
pay for it.
|
|> or free as in
|> "available" (i.e "Is this seat free?").
|
| Again, it doesn't make too much sense in relation to software.
What would
| it mean for a software to be "available"? With physical objects it
makes
| more sense because there's only one of it, and someone may have
reserved
| it for himself, so it's not available to others.
|
| The only stretched meaning for "available" with respect to software
| would be as a synonym for "in distribution". In other words, the
| software in question is being distributed, and not kept closed
somewhere
| where people don't have any access to it. Again, "free" doesn't
describe
| that situation at all.
|
| Even if you say "freely available", that usually means, in
common parlance,
| that you don't have to pay for it.
|
You would think that in the eleven dictionary definitions that come
before "you don't have to pay" there would be one that fit, and lo!
There is! The first definition states:
1. Someone or something that is free is not restricted, controlled
or limited, for example by rules, customs, or other people.
This is perfectly applicable to software and has nothing to do with
how much you pay. Of course, by this definition GPL software isn't
any more free than POV, but that was my point...
Jerome
- --
+------------------------- Jerome M. BERGER ---------------------+
| mailto:jeb### [at] freefr | ICQ: 238062172 |
| http://jeberger.free.fr/ | Jabber: jeb### [at] jabberfr |
+---------------------------------+------------------------------+
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkh5lNwACgkQd0kWM4JG3k/1sgCePSiYptiLYhyEHfgAUjssRyPR
FyIAn0NmpDJ8VBF6Q1X6hlFEhNY1/BMd
=CLzM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 13 Jul 2008 05:45:10
Message: <4879cea5@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alessio Sangalli <ale### [at] manowebcom> wrote:
> Warp, are you a POV-ray developer?
I have contributed some code and documentation to POV-Ray, although
I couldn't call myself a "POV-Ray developer" per se.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13-Jul-08 0:39, Alessio Sangalli wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Will people PLEASE stop using the term "free software" to mean what
>> the FSF has distorted it to mean? Pretty please?
>
>
> Those are terms with a very well know meaning in the software scene.
>
No, it is used in various subscenes differently. You are currently not
in a environment that agrees with FSF on this one.* Perhaps you are in
your normal job/study in a group that does, in which case you need a
context switch when coming here. ;)
*) the reasons why some people may overreact a little here to your
question are that 1) it has been asked over and over again yet the
license file is very clear and 2) people have moved POV out the list of
free software in some packages because it does not comply to some
arbitrary definition, thereby suggesting that POV costs money to use.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas George
Subject: Re: Licensing, Ethics, Open Source and Philosophy
Date: 14 Jul 2008 03:54:03
Message: <487b061b@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote in message <487### [at] hotmailcom>:
> No, it is used in various subscenes differently.
That is true, but most uses differ only on details, and agree on the major
points, and in particular the right to re-distribute modified versions for a
fee.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
