Josh wrote:
> Okay, I have read the agreement, but it seems opposed to the comments "made" 
> by Chris in the article.
> 
> So , any chance of a ruling, explanation, clarification. 

Disclaimer - note that in my following comments I am not giving legal advice
nor am I taking a stance for or against any particular use; this is just my
opinion.

The article contains some generalizations and in particular does not go into
detail in some cases. For example, in the section on commercial bundling,
while it mentions that commercial bundling (inclusion with programs for sale)
has been allowed, it doesn't go on to say that this requires explicit
permission from the team co-ordinator (since this is not the article's
purpose - it's a discussion on the difficulties of changing a license, not a
detailed examination of the meaning of our current license).

Regarding your question about a web service, the answer is 'it depends'.
Specifically you mention that the windows app uses a web service; if that is
the case then it appears to me that at the very least the implementor of the
web service is the one who has to be thinking of a license. It also depends
on what the windows application does; for example, would it be the sort of
application that effectively gives the user full remote control of POV-Ray?
(in which case it may be that they need to agree to our license), or is it
something that is just rendering images, and the user is oblivious to this?

Even in the latter case there are questions about what can and can't be done
since the remote use of software is something that hasn't yet I think been
fully clarified in law.

As a general guide I will say that the team isn't against reasonable use,
particularly if there is no profit in it. If you have a specific use in mind
and can give definitive details then you ought to write to the address given
in the license and ask.

-- Chris Cason
   POV-Team co-ordinator

Post a reply to this message