 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I saw a link to download the source, but I figured there would be some SCM link,
Google code, Bitbucket, Github... There may be an answer somewhere but I didn't
find one in a quick search. Is there a reason the code isn't on Github.com?
Nick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Le Forgeron
Subject: Re: Happily surprised to see PovRay still going, but where is the Source Contro=
Date: 3 Feb 2012 12:46:32
Message: <4f2c1d78$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 02/02/2012 22:45, portelli.nick nous fit lire :
> I saw a link to download the source, but I figured there would be some SCM link,
> Google code, Bitbucket, Github... There may be an answer somewhere but I didn't
> find one in a quick search. Is there a reason the code isn't on Github.com?
The license, Nick, the license. You didn't read it for the version up to
3.6.2, did you ?
IMHO, Povray is a cathedral, not a bazaar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] free fr> wrote:
> Le 02/02/2012 22:45, portelli.nick nous fit lire :
> > I saw a link to download the source, but I figured there would be some SCM link,
> > Google code, Bitbucket, Github... There may be an answer somewhere but I didn't
> > find one in a quick search. Is there a reason the code isn't on Github.com?
>
> The license, Nick, the license. You didn't read it for the version up to
> 3.6.2, did you ?
>
> IMHO, Povray is a cathedral, not a bazaar.
I did not see the license...(people read those? I thought they were like
EULA's) Huh. I don't read legalese well, Not sure why lawyers can't just speak
normal, So I guess I didn't see anything but explicitly says you can't put under
public scm. But no matter, I don't need to understand, I was merely curious.
Ugh I had to Google the metaphor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Happily surprised to see PovRay still going, but where is the Source Co=
Date: 18 Feb 2012 22:46:50
Message: <4f4070aa$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/17/2012 10:20, portelli.nick wrote:
> Not sure why lawyers can't just speak normal
Precedence. Basically, at one point in time, a judge said "You win, because
you said Yibba Yabbo Yo". From then on, all the lawyers will use the same
terminology. That is, for example, why all the EULAs have the lack of
warranty in UPPER CASE. Because at one point someone argued that they didn't
notice it, and the judge said "How could you miss it? It was in upper case!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
