On 2018-10-30 5:56 AM (-4), clipka wrote:
> Am 30.10.2018 um 04:58 schrieb Robert Munyer:
>>
>> Question 2:  If this is not a bug but a problem in the scene file...
>> Suppose that Bar and Baz were written by different authors; which one of
>> them is responsible?  Was the author of Bar supposed to avoid coincident
>> surfaces, even though he was just unioning some untextured solid objects?
>> Or conversely, was the author of Baz supposed to perform an audit of the
>> structural details of the objects that he was differencing, just in case
>> one of them might have its own subcomponents that have coincidences?

You should see the machinations I went through to avoid coincident 
surfaces in RoundEdge in the Object Collection.  Also in the Object 
Collection, the GemCuts user manual has a warning that setting objects 
(in contrast to gem objects) are not intended for use with transparent 
textures.  The reason is that I made no attempt to eliminate internal 
surfaces, but with that comes a high likelihood of hidden coincident 
surfaces.  Now you have me wondering if I should include a warning not 
to difference that Tiffany solitaire setting from... uh, a clay 
impression?  A Styrofoam box?

> That's really a legal question, and therefore outside the scope of these 
> newsgroups; you better consult a lawyer about this. All I as a layman 
> can say is that as far as I am aware, there is nothing intentionally 
> inherent in POV-Ray or its terms of use that would imply one or the other.

Object Collection submissions are under the LGPL license, and my other 
independent submissions are under the GPL.  I've also submitted 
modifications and supplements to POV-Ray distribution scene files, which 
are covered by Creative Commons.  All these licenses have explicit 
warranty disclaimers.  So, the user's problem, not mine.  :p

Post a reply to this message