On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:51:59 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Words do have more than a single definition, typically. ;-)
> 
>   Tell that to the FSF.

Well, you're the one saying you don't understand their usage....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:51:59 -0400, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> Words do have more than a single definition, typically. ;-)
> > 
> >   Tell that to the FSF.

> Well, you're the one saying you don't understand their usage....

  I didn't say I don't understand it. I said I completely disagree with it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> 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*

This kind of answer is not likely to attract new developers.

You may agree or not, but nowadays, most free (as in "of no cost")
developers contribute to free (as defined by FSF) projects, or at least to
FSF-friendly projects.

I guess POV-Team doesn't need new developers.

-a.

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:33:34 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:51:59 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 
>> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >> Words do have more than a single definition, typically. ;-)
>> > 
>> >   Tell that to the FSF.
> 
>> Well, you're the one saying you don't understand their usage....
> 
>   I didn't say I don't understand it. I said I completely disagree with
>   it.

So you don't think there's any definition of "free" that applies other 
than "free of cost"?  Interesting interpretation of the English language, 
that....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

The whole thread is worse than a headache. The program is free.

If you need money, get a job and contribute to society.

Profit motive is republican, shallow, expected and predictable.

Principles, the rules you choose to live by, are the only thing that can support
ideal reality. Law can't do it. Threat of, or even the ACTUAL, torture can't do
it. For some it is too much to care about or even understand the concept of
right and wrong. For that, the gods themselves seem to have no solution.

Someone used the term, "Get a clue". What he said.
aQ

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Woody <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> I hate to use a cliche but I feel like a taker, rather than a giver when
>> it comes to this great program.
> 
> In my opinion just being a user, contributing to the newsgroups, and maybe
> an image from time to time, is a great contribution. I bet nothing makes
> the pov-team happier than people who use the program, be it for fun, work
> or both.

In my opinion, add one to the list: showing the program to others :) We all
like the free advertising (and word of mouth is the best kind).

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
> Keep asking questions. Look at it from the perspective of someone just
> finding POV-Ray. They may have the same question but, like so many
> people, feel that they aren't ready to join in the community and start
> asking them. Even simple questions give more experienced users time to
> think about a problem again, and maybe come up with a new idea.

Some day you may even ask "how do I do X?" and a developer will answer "uh,
you can't, but now that I think about it, it would be useful if you could".
And POV4.1 gets the new feature :)

From what I heard in the FLOSS podcast, that's how many features were added
back in POV2.0 days...

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> *) 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.

Doesn't matter if it suggests POV costs money. It's still bad if they put it
in the same bag as nVidia video drivers for Linux (I mean it literally,
some distros put them in the same group, "non-free" or similar).

Both are free in price. But nvidia drivers are closed-source, and POV-Ray
lets you see the code, even modify it, even redistribute your modification.
You just have to comply with the rules for modification and redistribution,
which happen not to match FSF's Free Software definition, or Debian Free
Software Guidelines, or whatever.

Post a reply to this message

"Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> 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 :)

Last I heard, they were waiting for GPLv3 wording to be officially completed
and released, then analyze it to see if it matched what they wanted.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>> Keep asking questions. Look at it from the perspective of someone just
>> finding POV-Ray. They may have the same question but, like so many
>> people, feel that they aren't ready to join in the community and start
>> asking them. Even simple questions give more experienced users time to
>> think about a problem again, and maybe come up with a new idea.
> 
> Some day you may even ask "how do I do X?" and a developer will answer "uh,
> you can't, but now that I think about it, it would be useful if you could".
> And POV4.1 gets the new feature :)
> 
> From what I heard in the FLOSS podcast, that's how many features were added
> back in POV2.0 days...
> 

Or, before a developer responds, someone else says "This is how you can 
do X." and the developer responds "Wow, that actually works?"

Either way, dialogs get people thinking. Even simple questions can 
create interesting discussions.

Post a reply to this message