Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> > nemesis schrieb:
> > hmm?  Why is generated image licensing a concern?
> Please read what i wrote in:
> Subject: Re: POV-Ray Includes - Licensing
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:40:19 +0100
> From: Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
> Newsgroups: povray.general

Yes, i've read about the threshold of originality.  Well, i think if we dig
too much deep we're going nowhere.  Source code licensing is as far as i'll
go.

> For all discussed licenses (both software licenses and CC) this depends
> on if the image can be regarded as derived works on the include files.

I really don't like this generated image licensing at all.  What if someone
sees a cool povray image (not source) and recreates it in Blender and
renders it in yafray almost matching the original lighting, colors and
camera positioning and angles?  Isn't that the same as a povray render of a
real world Volkwagen?  If someone just releases the jpg how can we now if
they are ripping from a povray include file description of a 3D model or
have come up with something of their own?

This is why i think it's best for us to just keep on source code
licensing...

> Concerning LGPL - you should keep in mind that this would allow anyone
> to integrate the covered include files into different 3D packages (by
> translating into a different language) and distribute them as a closed
> product.

That's the purpose of the LGPL of course:  to allow unrestricted *use* of
the libraries by anyone.

Still, isn't translating the include file -- say, the algorithm behind a
complex macro -- to another language a derived work itself?  If so, the
community loses nothing from the company incorporating them, since they are
obligued by copyright law governing the LGPL license terms to give back the
source to the modification itself.

Post a reply to this message