 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Sat, 05 May 2007 12:27:49 +0200 schrieb Marc:
>
> de news: pan### [at] removeit geloeschtnet... .
>> Otherwise I'll simply write an application, which exports the data as a
>> mesh2. Many people don't want to compile things themselves anyway.
>
> That's so true :-D
> Good Idea!
>
> Marc
Yes, but always having to start an external application which generates
MBs of text files which take longer to parse than
it took to make the mesh2 itself for a simple animation does not sound
very promising either. Now that I know how everything works I can do both
things (patch and application).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> IMHO POV's license is GPL-compatible.
>
> In what sense? If I recall right (which is a big if) it makes extra
> restrictions (no commercial derivatives, for one) that the GPL forbids.
The way I understand it, modified versions of POV can be covered
by both GPL and POV licenses. Your program could be
written as a stand-alone, and would be clearly be separate from
other POV functionality if included into something like MegaPov,
therefore the patch could be licensed as GPL while other POV stuff
stays under the POV license.
-----
The problem with lawyers is that they're bloodsucking parasites
living off of others pain and suffering.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> The way I understand it, modified versions of POV can be covered
> by both GPL and POV licenses.
Pov's license can allow anything it wants; the GPL license does not
allow other parts of the same work to be covered under something other
than the GPL.
From the GPL, section 1:
> You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,
> and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for
> a fee.
From section 2:
> You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
> third parties under the terms of this License.
Section 6:
> Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on
> the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from
> the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the
> Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose
> any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the
> rights granted herein. You are not responsible for
> enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Every recipient must be allowed to freely distribute copies of the
program (with source) for free or for charge. However, the POV license
states:
> 3.4. Except as explicitly set out in this agreement, nothing in this
> agreement permits Distributor to make any modification to
> any part of the Software.
and fails to enumerate all the rights required by the GPL. In addition,
it has a laundry list of people and purposes that cannot use POV.
(What's up with including POV with magazines, anyway? For some reason
whoever wrote the license seems to hate magazines.)
My understanding is that the GPL therefore prohibits distributing
binaries that include both GPL and POV code.
> Your program could be
> written as a stand-alone, and would be clearly be separate from
> other POV functionality if included into something like MegaPov,
> therefore the patch could be licensed as GPL while other POV stuff
> stays under the POV license.
That should be fine.
> -----
> The problem with lawyers is that they're bloodsucking parasites
> living off of others pain and suffering.
Amen to that.
Did I mention that I'm not a lawyer, just a FOSS licensing nerd, so
don't take my rambling as legal advice, OK? :-)
--
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when you look at a matrix
transform and know instantly what it does.
John VanSickle
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > Your program could be
> > written as a stand-alone, and would be clearly be separate from
> > other POV functionality if included into something like MegaPov,
> > therefore the patch could be licensed as GPL while other POV stuff
> > stays under the POV license.
>
> That should be fine.
It would be nice if POV had a plug-in mechanism for loading
extension libraries dynamically at run-time, which could then
implement new primitive objects, functions, patterns, ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I updated the test render. Tiles are now absolutely seamless. I am
currently in touch with the author (is that correct english?) to resolve
the problems regarding animation. Also there could be a way of calculating
waves using the parametric primitive. That would produce more exact
results in regions, that are close to the camera and save memory space.
Normal mapping would be also an option for fast simulation on planes.
Once I finished the patch I will start work on an exporter for all people,
who are not used to compiling. It will be released separetely.
You still can find the test render here:
> http://geloescht.net/allerlei/test_waves.jpg
Lukas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lukas Winter wrote:
> I updated the test render. Tiles are now absolutely seamless. I am
> currently in touch with the author (is that correct english?) to resolve
> the problems regarding animation.
I am very much looking forward to seeing animations done with this
thing. :-)
It shouldn't be very hard to come up with stills like that with pure SDL
(I think I've seen it done before, in fact) but animations are a
different story.
--
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when a co-worker nearly kills
himself over losing an hour's worth of work after a computer crash, and
you just calmly shrug your shoulders and say, "Is that all?"
Taps a.k.a. Tapio Vocadlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > 3.4. Except as explicitly set out in this agreement, nothing in this
> > agreement permits Distributor to make any modification to
> > any part of the Software.
Right, a modified version must state that it's modified.
> and fails to enumerate all the rights required by the GPL. In addition, it
> has a laundry list of people and purposes that cannot use POV.
POV enumerates "the four freedoms" but doesn't use the same
legal language as GPL. Essentially it doesn't matter what POV's
license is if you use the separate functionality equals separate
programs argument.
Additionally, POV is specifically allowed to be distributed in conjunction
with any free operating system licensed by FSF, and GPL
specifically provides an exception for such code. (Even though POV
has not been actually distributed that way to my knowledge, it could
be considered to be covered by this.)
> (What's up with including POV with magazines, anyway? For some reason
> whoever wrote the license seems to hate magazines.)
I believe some magazine distributed a partial copy of POV
that didn't work right, along with the phone number of one
of the POV team as a support number. *RING* *RING*
*RING* *RING* *RING*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> POV enumerates "the four freedoms" but doesn't use the same
> legal language as GPL.
I need to spend more quality time with the license, then, because I'm
not seeing it. :-P
> Essentially it doesn't matter what POV's
> license is if you use the separate functionality equals separate
> programs argument.
Except that the GPL doesn't allow this argument, unless the program is
distributed as a separate binary.
> Additionally, POV is specifically allowed to be distributed in conjunction
> with any free operating system licensed by FSF, and GPL
> specifically provides an exception for such code. (Even though POV
> has not been actually distributed that way to my knowledge, it could
> be considered to be covered by this.)
Uh, I don't think that exactly applies to Pov and GPL code mixing in the
same binary.
> I believe some magazine distributed a partial copy of POV
> that didn't work right, along with the phone number of one
> of the POV team as a support number. *RING* *RING*
> *RING* *RING* *RING*
Um, eew. :-P
--
William Tracy
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|a|f|i|s|h|i|o|n|a|d|o|@|g|m|a|i|l|.|c|o|m|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|w|t|r|a|c|y|@|c|a|l|p|o|l|y|.|e|d|u|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
You know you've been raytracing too long when you have ever said "I
don't need no steenking modellers!!!"
Stephan Ahonen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
