it would help make things clear if you addressed how image licensing would
cope with the following:

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 also the same as a
povray render of a real world Volkwagen?  Can Volkswagen sue you for design
likeliness?  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?

I think limiting usage of generated images would be worse than licensing the
include file sources under the GPL, which would still permit commercial
usage as long as sources are distributed with the binary.  Why would people
people use an include file in the first place if they can't use it to
generate an image?

Perhaps you should clarify in what way such limitation is regarded.  Is it
just a matter of attributing credit to the original author?  Is it
prohibition of generated images for use in commercial products?

One of the reasons i'd like to see povray include files improved is so that
people can actually use povray for commercial use indeed.  Like a designer
or architect designing scenes with it rather than VRay or something...

Anyway, i'll let it up to you guys to decide on such thorny issues.  I'm
just a software programmer and source code is the only thing that matters
to me.  Only thing i know is that GPLed GCC don't limits what license i put
on generated binaries...

Post a reply to this message