On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:25:37 GMT, povray.org admin team wrote:
>We provide the GUIEXT system on Windows, which is a dynamically linked module.
>This is the technique that TextureView uses. If that isn't good enough for you,
>well, too bad. We've been burnt before by unscrupulous individuals who want to
>steal our hard work. We're not suggesting that you're in that category but as
>with anything, the actions of a small minority ruin things for the majority.

I've been wondering about something.  Please, don't take this as an insult
or a second-guess or anything, as I have the greatest respect for the Team
and for your right to choose your own distribution and licensing terms - I
for one am happy to be able to see source code at all, considering some of
the alternatives.  But perhaps someone could clear this up for me.

POVLEGAL.DOC already says this:

  No portion of the POV-Ray source code may be incorporated into another 
  program unless it is clearly a custom version of POV-Ray that includes 
  all of the basic functions of POV-Ray.

and this: 

  Any attempt to obscure the fact that the user is running POV-Ray or to 
  obscure that this is an unofficial version expressly prohibited.[1]

What is the reasoning behind the further prohibition of things that can be
used to break either of the two rules above but could also be used for good?

I mean, if I'm a bad guy and I'm going to steal the POV code for my own 
nefarious purposes, I'm not going to be scared off by yet another paragraph
telling me I can't do it.  If I'm a good guy and I plan to follow the terms
of the license, then even if I'm allowed to add new interfaces I won't add 
any that are designed to violate the terms quoted above.  

I guess I could understand an additional explicit prohibition of interfaces 
that could reasonably be expected to be (mis)used to violate other provisions 
of the license, even if they're not designed for that purpose, but the current 
language does seem overly broad to me.

Of course, portability is an admirable goal as well, and the current terms do 
help to enhance that, but I've never seen that mentioned as one of the goals 
of the license.  Again, this is not intended to be a criticism, but a sincere 
request for additional enlightenment.

[1] I might note that the second quoted item is not a complete sentence and
is therefore technically meaningless.  This should perhaps be remedied in a 
future version.

Post a reply to this message