My particle system is finally released! You can use it POV-Ray 3.5 to
create all sorts of effects, like water, smoke, fire and sparks. With a
generic and non-specialized engine, the system makes it easy to
customize the simulation to a wide range of uses. The package comes
complete with include files, documentation, and several sample scene
files that makes it easy to get started. You can download the system and
also see animations of all the sample scene files here:
http://runevision.com/3d/include/particles/

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> My particle system is finally released! You can use it POV-Ray 3.5 to
> create all sorts of effects, like water, smoke, fire and sparks. With a
> generic and non-specialized engine, the system makes it easy to
> customize the simulation to a wide range of uses. The package comes
> complete with include files, documentation, and several sample scene
> files that makes it easy to get started. You can download the system and
> also see animations of all the sample scene files here:
> http://runevision.com/3d/include/particles/
> 

Nice. And congratulations for finally finishing it. :-)

I have not tried it yet but the example animations look good.

A few comments:
 
- from what you write in the documentation about the collisions i conclude
you have not solved the 'particles penetrating the surface'-problem.  You
might try function based environments like i'm using for my mechanics
simulations.
 
- i have not checked the code but from what you write in 'Inner workings'
gravity is added to the position ("Each particle is moved by it's current
velocity (current location minus last location) plus gravity (for example
-y)") while it should be added to the velocity in fact.

- i am somewhat astonished about your license conditions.  I understand if
you don't want others to modify your tool and redistribute changed
versions but requiring everyone to contact you before publishing a
picture/animation using your file seems a bit exaggerated.  

Forbidding to use your include file for producing commercial work is to
some extent understandable - you don't want others to make profit with
something you put a lot of work into and none the less give away for free,
but on the other hand such a restriction will almost surely prevent a
great success of your tool since a lot of people will refrain from using
it from the beginning with such a restriction.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote in
news:3DB1D68A.499B34D2@gmx.de 

> - from what you write in the documentation about the collisions i
> conclude you have not solved the 'particles penetrating the
> surface'-problem.  You might try function based environments like i'm
> using for my mechanics simulations.

Hellow,
little OT suggestion - how about changing POV work philosofy to get a big 
hmm calculations utility, that can work togeather with external programs.

Now schemat is like :
* pov parses scene
* pov is doing some pre-calculations like photons
* pov is rendering scene lines 0..height

I suggest something like :
a) pov starts and :

b) Now pov works as hmm some kind of server (not web server ofcourse :P)
he keeps in memory all nesesary data, and response to following possible 
requests :
* commands 
  - load and parse scene "..."
  - unload current scene (dealloc)
  - quit
* render 
  - render pixel
  - render sample (for AA)
  - render line
  - render area
* scene phisics informations
  - is point (x,y,z) inside object called "..."
  - intersection (x,y,z) in direction (X,Y,Z) of object "..."
  - normal of object "..." in point (x,y,z)
  - color of object in (x,y,z)
    - color due to diffuse
    - ... refelction
    - photons
    - etc

From technical side, possible comunication pipes could be i.e.:
- DDL sharing memory in Windows
- pipes in Unix/Linux ? (i'm newbie in this topic)
- files (in any OS, but it may be slow, unless files are i.e. in RAM disc)
- some TCP/IP protocol ? it would be realy greate and will allow very nice 
cluster rendering

Possible usage :
- cluster rendering
- additional editors / front-ends
- external programs like phisicla smulations


-- 
#macro g(U,V)(.4*abs(sin(9*sqrt(pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))))*pow(1-min(1,(sqrt(
pow(x-U,2)+pow(y-V,2))*.3)),2)+.9)#end#macro p(c)#if(c>1)#local l=mod(c,100
);g(2*div(l,10)-8,2*mod(l,10)-8)*p(div(c,100))#else 1#end#end light_source{
y 2}sphere{z*20 9pigment{function{p(26252423)*p(36455644)*p(66656463)}}}//M

Post a reply to this message

I suggest you put the documentation on the actual web page (linked from it,
that is). I'd personally like to skim the documentation and see what the
syntax is like before I download and unzip a file, y'know?

That said, this looks cool enough that I'm going to do so anyway. =)

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Nice. And congratulations for finally finishing it. :-)

Thank you. :)

> - from what you write in the documentation about
> the collisions i conclude you have not solved the
> 'particles penetrating the surface'- problem.
> You might try function based environments like
> i'm using for my mechanics simulations.

It's not a big problem. Under most circumstances, none or very few
particles fall through the surface. Wouldn't function-based environments
require the user to specify the environments as functions? As simplicity
is one of the major goals in my system, I want the environment to simply
be an object, as that is much easier to control, and more intuitive too.

> - i have not checked the code but from what you
> write in 'Inner workings' gravity is added to
> the position ("Each particle is moved by it's
> current velocity (current location minus last
> location) plus gravity (for example -y)") while
> it should be added to the velocity in fact.

That would be true if I had one variable for location and one for
velocity, and then could calculate the new location based on this. But
in fact I have one variable for the old location and one for the new
location, and then I can derive the velocity from this. So when I add
gravity to the new location but not the old, then it's the same as
adding gravity to the velocity.

> I understand if you don't want others to modify
> your tool and redistribute changed versions but
> requiring everyone to contact you before publishing
> a picture/animation using your file seems a bit
> exaggerated.

Yes, it's a bit over the edge, I know. :/  I might change it. It's
mostly there because I really like to get contacted when people have
used my utilities for something...

> Forbidding to use your include file for producing
> commercial work is to some extent understandable
> - you don't want others to make profit with something
> you put a lot of work into and none the less give
> away for free

Exactly.

> but on the other hand such a restriction will almost
> surely prevent a great success of your tool since a
> lot of people will refrain from using it from the
> beginning with such a restriction.

Well, it's important for me that people don't make profit on my work;
perhaps more important than how great success my tool gets. Besides, if
people want to make profit on it, they can either make an arrangement
where they buy a license from me, or if they are going to make very
minor profits only, they can obtain a permission from me to use it for
free anyway.

Maybe I should make this part in bold:
"If you would like to do something with it that is not allowed according
to the terms described here, you can always ask me for a special
permission."

Or maybe I should rewrite the terms of use completely. Dunno. I'm glad
to discuss them and to get input and thoughts on them.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Slime wrote:
> I suggest you put the documentation on the actual
> web page (linked from it, that is). I'd personally
> like to skim the documentation and see what the
> syntax is like before I download and unzip a file,
> y'know?

Ok, I'll do that. :)

> That said, this looks cool enough that I'm going
> to do so anyway. =)

Thanks. :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Got it just now, thanks for all your effort put into it. Hopefully I'll be
able to learn how to use it.

I read the Terms Of Use thoroughly. I wouldn't have too much of a problem
with anything; except my own descriptions of things I do are often minimal
to none, at least when put on the www. But I need to work on that aspect
anyhow, as I tend to think in a closed-circuit fashion in which I expect
people will know already, or find out about POV-Ray and the things
surrounding it, and so need little told to them. That being stuff I might
put on the Internet anyhow, I guess because it's pictures not talk. Links to
a persons web site is a simple matter, so shouldn't be a problem.

You could be asking for hundreds of e-mails to answer, or maybe some trouble
with the more ignorant people (nothing personal, anyone). Just that I think
a lot of people only glance over such things, unless they are serious about
that aspect themselves to begin with. What I'm getting at is that there is a
lot of chance for misunderstandings amid it all. Unfortunately, I haven't
any suggestions about possible changes you might make. There's nothing real
paramount from my viewpoint.

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> It's not a big problem. Under most circumstances, none or very few
> particles fall through the surface. Wouldn't function-based environments
> require the user to specify the environments as functions? 

Right, but it would be much more robust compared to your method and you
won't need something like 'particle_bounceoffset' and 'particle_killobj'
which also makes things easier.

> > - i have not checked the code but from what you
> > write in 'Inner workings' gravity is added to
> > the position ("Each particle is moved by it's
> > current velocity (current location minus last
> > location) plus gravity (for example -y)") while
> > it should be added to the velocity in fact.
> 
> That would be true if I had one variable for location and one for
> velocity, and then could calculate the new location based on this. But
> in fact I have one variable for the old location and one for the new
> location, and then I can derive the velocity from this. So when I add
> gravity to the new location but not the old, then it's the same as
> adding gravity to the velocity.

Not really, but a look at the source reverals that you seem to do it the
right way.  Your formula (as far as i can see) is:

new_position = old_position + time_step * old_velocity + time_step^2 *
acceleration 

which can be derived from the formula of classical explicit first order
integration method:

new_velocity = old_velocity + time_step * acceleration
new_position = old_position + time_step * old_velocity

if we put in new_velocity for old_velocity which does not change anything
fundamental, the method is probably still convergent.

But notice the difference between 'time_step^2 * acceleration' and
acceleration itself (in your case gravity). 'time_step' is quite small.  

> [...]
> 
> Well, it's important for me that people don't make profit on my work;
> perhaps more important than how great success my tool gets.

In general?

You contributed to the POV-Ray 3.5 include files although those are
allowed to be used commercially.

> Besides, if
> people want to make profit on it, they can either make an arrangement
> where they buy a license from me, or if they are going to make very
> minor profits only, they can obtain a permission from me to use it for
> free anyway.
> 
> Maybe I should make this part in bold:
> "If you would like to do something with it that is not allowed according
> to the terms described here, you can always ask me for a special
> permission."

I think this is nearly obvious from what you write in your terms, but most
professionals (and also ambitious hobbyists) like clear conditions and
don't want to depend on your generosity when they start using your tool. 
If you think your include file is worth some payment for being used
commercially you should clearly state that in the terms of use.  Something
like "licences for commercial usage can be obtained for ...€" or "For
commercial usage contact me for receiving the current price list".

> Or maybe I should rewrite the terms of use completely. Dunno. I'm glad
> to discuss them and to get input and thoughts on them.

Well, i think the reasons for you creating such restrictions are somewhat
understandable but i somehow doubt they have the intended effect.  For me
knowing my products are used by a lot of people, no matter if for making
profit or not, seems more rewarding than knowing nobody can legally make
money using my tools.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Right, but it would be much more robust compared
> to your method and you won't need something like
> 'particle_bounceoffset' and 'particle_killobj'
> which also makes things easier.

particle_bounceoffset is a single value that is very easy to tweak.
particle_killobj is used for completely different purposes, where you
intentionally wants object killed when they hit a specific object.

This can in no way be compared to the complexity it is to define any
given surface in the term of a function. With the object approach you
can have a CSG object with hundreds of primitives in it and make the
particles collide with it, or you can use a mesh object for that matter.
That is next to impossible with functions. I don't see why you seem to
think that it is such a great advantage to use function based
environments, if you compare the pros and cons.

> Not really, but a look at the source reverals that
> you seem to do it the right way.

Well, the description "inner workings" on the page should not be taken
as an accurate description with precise formulas. I think there are even
some things in my system which does not really correspond to that
description, because it's meant to explain the most basic concept only.

>> Well, it's important for me that people don't make
>> profit on my work; perhaps more important than how
>> great success my tool gets.
>
> In general?

Yes, in general, but not without exceptions.

> You contributed to the POV-Ray 3.5 include files
> although those are allowed to be used commercially.

Yes. But that was not my own project, it was just a project I helped
with.

> most professionals (and also ambitious hobbyists)
> like clear conditions and don't want to depend on
> your generosity when they start using your tool.
> If you think your include file is worth some
> payment for being used commercially you should
> clearly state that in the terms of use.

Yeah, I should do that...

> Well, i think the reasons for you creating such
> restrictions are somewhat understandable but i
> somehow doubt they have the intended effect.

Well, I intent to keep most of the restriction, but perhaps in a
different form.

> For me knowing my products are used by a lot of
> people, no matter if for making profit or not,
> seems more rewarding than knowing nobody can
> legally make money using my tools.

I don't feel that way. But then, I have very little money myself, which
probably makes even worse the thought of other people making profit on
my work.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> [...]
> I don't see why you seem to
> think that it is such a great advantage to use function based
> environments, if you compare the pros and cons.

Because i have used it and it works very nicely.  Maybe just try it out
with some heightfield object (and an image_map function in comparison).  I
remember this flowing animation with two channels dividing and merging you
once posted,  this would be a nice test object.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
[things about the terms of use]

Christoph, I've changed the terms of use on my web site a little. Could
you have a look at them now and let me know if they are any better than
before?
http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp

(I have not yet changed the terms of use written in the documentation
for the particle system itself.)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>> I don't see why you seem to think that it is
>> such a great advantage to use function based
>> environments, if you compare the pros and cons.
>
> Because i have used it and it works very nicely.

You didn't comment on the issue of the environments being complex CSGs
or meshes. I still think that's a big limitation of function based
environments. Sure they have other advantages instead, but I didn't want
to implement both methods, and when choosing just one, I by far prefer
the object based environments.

All the time I have profiled my particle system on its
user-friendliness, and I couldn't have done that with function based
environments.

> Maybe just try it out with some heightfield object
> (and an image_map function in comparison).

"Just try it out"? It's you who have support for it in your system.
Implementing it in mine would take a very long time, and I'm not
interested in it in the first place.

> I remember this flowing animation with two channels
> dividing and merging you once posted, this would be
> a nice test object.

I can send you the image I used for the height_field if you want it...
But I think it would look better if the height_field is rotated by the
angles <5,15,5>. Doing this with an object is extremely easy, even for a
newbie user. Is it that with a function based environment too?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> Christoph, I've changed the terms of use on my web site a little. Could
> you have a look at them now and let me know if they are any better than
> before?
> http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp
> 

As it seems you removed the requirement of contacting you when publishing
images made with help of your files and added a clear mention of the
possibility to obtain commercial licenses.  Surely better.

BTW, your 'pov goodies' section does not contain a link to these terms -
does this mean these are not covered by the restrictions?

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> You didn't comment on the issue of the environments being complex CSGs
> or meshes. I still think that's a big limitation of function based
> environments. 
> [...]

Surely it is.  I did not want to start a religious discussion on that
matter. i just wanted to mention that functions might be an improvement in
certain situations and surely would be a solution for certain problems.  I
would never suggest to remove intersection based collisions completely in
favor of function based ones, just an alternative.

Of course the advantages are much more significant if the particles have a
radius (like in my simulation system).

And if user-friendliness was the only criteria isosurfaces would never
have been implemented in the first place... ;-)

> [...]
> 
> But I think it would look better if the height_field is rotated by the
> angles <5,15,5>. Doing this with an object is extremely easy, even for a
> newbie user. Is it that with a function based environment too?

Sure, you should really try the IsoCSG library:

#declare fn_Rotated=
  IC_Transform(
    function { fn_Original(x, y, z) },
    transform { rotate <5,15,5> }
  )

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Surely better.

Ah, good.

> BTW, your 'pov goodies' section does not contain
> a link to these terms - does this mean these are
> not covered by the restrictions?

Err, well. The files on the goodies page are not include files, they are
just some pov files that describe some techniques that are not even
particularly advanced. Since you can't copyright a technique, I cannot
(and will not) prevent people from using those techniques wherever they
want.

Of course the files still may not be redistributed etc. I also still
appreciate credits where due (like for example you have done on your
page), but I cannot make it a strict requirement.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> [things about the terms of use]
> 
> Christoph, I've changed the terms of use on my web site a little. Could
> you have a look at them now and let me know if they are any better than
> before?
> http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp

Food for thought...

If I modify and use one of your include files to make an image I recieve $100
dollars for, and never credit nor contact you, are you willing to pursue legal
action against me in an international court of law?

Are you ready to back up your words with actions?

Otherwise, what do you hope to accomplish with these terms of use?

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> Food for thought...
>
> If I modify and use one of your include files to make
> an image I recieve $100 dollars for, and never credit
> nor contact you, are you willing to pursue legal
> action against me in an international court of law?

No, most likely not, and chances are I'd never find out about it in the
first place.

> Are you ready to back up your words with actions?

Only to some extent.

> Otherwise, what do you hope to accomplish with these
> terms of use?

Instruct honest people how they may use the files that I have made
available?

It has paid off a few times you know...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Allow me to play Devils Advocate for a moment here -

---------------------
I just copyrighted the following scene.

camera{location<0,0,-3>look_at 0}
light_source{<0,0,-2> rgb 1}
box{-.5,.5 pigment{rgb 1}}

You may not use the same syntax in any of your scenes or make derivative
works from it without first contacting me, paying me royalties and ensuring
that I am duly credited.
-----------------------



-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> Allow me to play Devils Advocate for a moment here -
>
> ---------------------
> I just copyrighted the following scene.
>
> camera{location<0,0,-3>look_at 0}
> light_source{<0,0,-2> rgb 1}
> box{-.5,.5 pigment{rgb 1}}
>
> You may not use the same syntax in any of your scenes
> or make derivative works from it without first
> contacting me, paying me royalties and ensuring that
> I am duly credited.
> -----------------------

Sure, I won't copy it, but I may by coincidence make an almost identical
scene file myself one day.

I really don't get what point you're trying to get through. The scene
above is a very minimal one that anyone could come up with, and thus it
doesn't make sense to copyright it. Are you implying that my include
files are equally simplistic, and that anyone could come up with those
too? If you have an actual message, could you say it in a more direct
way?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

> My particle system is finally released!
Great stuff !

Like Christoph, I have some concerns about your terms of use (TOS),
particularly because this seems to be a growing trend for freebie makers,
and one I don't like much. There have been some heated discussion in the
Poser forums about this and this imitation by individuals of certain habits
of software vendors leaves a lot of folks uneasy.
In a nutshell, while one must respect your decision to make strict demands
on how you want your work to be used, one can wonders if there would be a
community like this if everyone who provides free material had done the same
since the beginning. I expect people who make a living out of their graphic
work to make such restrictions, but I fail to see what benefit these
restrictions bring in the case of free material. IMHO, they're more likely
to alienate potential users. In the case of Poser freebies, I certainly
prefer now to buy material than risking offending someone. Quite a silly
situation.

Here are some precise comments:

>My files are for your enjoyment and education but may not be the basis of
>any derivative works. Also, you may not alter, correct, or improve any of
my
>files in any way.

People have been using my tree, grass, pipe etc. macros a lot in the last
years. They have modified them and improved them. I'm glad of this and I
think that it makes my work even more valuable, since it allows innovation
and circulation of ideas. Allowing people to do this is also a way for me to
thank all those who have done the same before. What is the global benefit in
not allowing this ?

>You may create images, animations, and other material where my include
files have
>been used in the process of creation, and use this material for
non-commercial purposes.

Granted, a few people (including me) sell images or do commissioned work
that include free material.
In my case, the restritcion will prevent me from using your macros
altogether, since I rarely know beforehand if I will make an image available
for sale or not. Even if I don't sell it, it may happen one day that someone
wants it for a book.

I understand that people who provide free material can think that this is
not fair that others benefit from it. Personally, I don't care whether my
free stuff is used commercially or not : I do it to help and please people,
and this includes people making a few bucks on the side. The possibility of
people abusing this seems extremely remote in the case of POV-Ray. There are
possible problems, but I don't think that a strict TOS will solve them,
particularly when you wouldn't be able to enforce it.

> For commercial usage, please contact me for receiving the current price
list and further information.

Well, if you think that your material has a market value, making it clearly
commercial (instead of limiting its use) is the way to go. However, having
been there myself, I'd say that it's your skills that you need to sell, not
the product itself, whose uses are targeted at a largely penniless hobbyist
crowd.

Ken Tyler is trying to demonstrate it to you in this thread, but I feel that
it's some can of worms I never thought that someone would open in the case
of POV-Ray... OK, what if Chris Colefax, or Jaime or I start doing the
same... Or the POV-Team itself ? Anyone here want to see that ?

>You must give me credits where due including both my name (Rune S.
Johansen) and a link to my web site (and the credits should not be hidden
away on a place where nobody sees it).

In my experience, people are more than willing to give credit when credit is
due. They do it without being asked to do so and sometimes they send "thank
you" emails. If what you do is really good and useful, be sure that people
will be thankful. I've never seen people take full credit for things I had
done. People who would do this certainly wouldn't care for a TOS anyway. I
think that NOT asking for credits is much nicer to users than asking.

Also, *** requiring *** people to give you credit is too much to ask. I
certainly do my best to credit people and in a few cases it meant spending
hours searching the net for some obscure, long-dead web pages. Still there
are many circumstances where it's not possible to credit everyone and
provide links to everything (like posting images in forums). There are also
priorities in what one can consider worth of credit or not and for me this
decision only belongs to the artist. So again, by using your macros the user
could risk violating the TOS some day.

OK, that's all :-) Just ideas, I won't make a big fuss about it !

G.

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> People have been using my tree, grass, pipe etc.
> macros a lot in the last years. They have modified
> them and improved them. I'm glad of this and I think
> that it makes my work even more valuable, since it
> allows innovation and circulation of ideas. Allowing
> people to do this is also a way for me to thank all
> those who have done the same before. What is the
> global benefit in not allowing this ?

It's a personal benefit. I have not given my files to the public domain,
and I'd like to keep control of how and where they are distributed. That
is not possible if people can distribute modified versions of my files
as they please.

> Granted, a few people (including me) sell images or
> do commissioned work that include free material.
> In my case, the restritcion will prevent me from
> using your macros altogether, since I rarely know
> beforehand if I will make an image available for sale
> or not.

If you do make it available for sale, you can buy a license to use the
particle system commercially.

> Even if I don't sell it, it may happen one day that
> someone wants it for a book.

Would you gain any profit from this? If yes, see above. If not, this
might be a good situation to ask me for a special permission, since the
situation is a bit special (commercial work where you don't get any
profit yourself).

> I understand that people who provide free material
> can think that this is not fair that others benefit
> from it.

Exactly.

> Personally, I don't care whether my free stuff is
> used commercially or not : I do it to help and please
> people, and this includes people making a few bucks
> on the side.

I do not feel the same way.

> The possibility of people abusing this seems extremely
> remote in the case of POV-Ray.

Still, there are people who both can and will pay for a license to use
my files commercially, and I'd like to take that opportunity for *me* to
make a few bucks on the work I have done. And I think it's only fair.

> There are possible problems, but I don't think that
> a strict TOS will solve them, particularly when you
> wouldn't be able to enforce it.

As I've said, I can only appeal to people's honesty.

> if you think that your material has a market value,
> making it clearly commercial (instead of limiting its use)
> is the way to go.

Clearly commercial so that hobbyists will also have to pay to use it
non-commercially? That's not something I'm interested in. Or what do you
mean exactly?

> However, having been there myself, I'd say that
> it's your skills that you need to sell, not the
> product itself, whose uses are targeted at a largely
> penniless hobbyist crowd.

Penniless until the day they begin earning money on it. And until that
day, they won't have to pay me anything.

I'm not sure what you mean by "selling my skills rather than the product
itself".

> OK, what if Chris Colefax, or Jaime or I start doing
> the same... Or the POV-Team itself ? Anyone here want
> to see that ?

We surely couldn't blame them. (Of course, the POV-Team have more or
less promised that they will never do it, so it would be kind of strange
if they broke that promise.)

Gilles, your macros and object collection is of high quality, so I
wouldn't mind being required to credit you wherever I use it, and I
wouldn't mind having to pay for it if I used it commercially.

So no, I don't see the problem.

> In my experience, people are more than willing to give
> credit when credit is due.

Except the few individuals who simply are not aware that it's considered
polite to give credit in such cases.

> I think that NOT asking for credits is much nicer to
> users than asking.

This is just a small detail IMO. I'd rather make things clear.

> Also, *** requiring *** people to give you credit
> is too much to ask.

Why? I think it's quite common tendency for free things on the net,
isn't it?

> There are also priorities in what one can consider worth
> of credit or not and for me this decision only belongs
> to the artist.

No, in the case of my files it's not the decision of the artist. The
artist can buy a commercial license by paying me money, or buy a
non-commercial license by "paying" me credit where due.

> So again, by using your macros the user could risk
> violating the TOS some day.

I don't see how that can happen involuntarily. Users don't risk
violating the TOS if they follow it.

I appreciate this discussion, so please don't hesitate to pursue your
arguments further. It is not totally out of the question that I might
make changes to some of the terms... :)

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> I appreciate this discussion, so please don't hesitate to pursue your
> arguments further. It is not totally out of the question that I might
> make changes to some of the terms... :)
> 
> Rune
> --
> 3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
> rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
> POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

I can understand your point, there is no real reason for me to
disagree and still I felt a bit uncomfortable when I read about
this.

Let me ramble a bit, perhaps it makes sense...

I have been using POVRay for commercial purposes (still do, come
to think of it) so I might be involved somehow, if I used your
particle system. I haven't had the need for it yet and I don't
really think I will. 
If I _would_ need it it would probably be for some detail
somewhere, not really be the key part. In such a case I think
I'd try to figure something out to simulate what it should look
like. I might also consider looking for some ready-to-use
alternatives. Running into a TOS like yours I'd probably stop
reading halfway and turn back to my own feeble attempts or look
somewhere else.

On the other hand, if it were free, with a line somewhere saying
that you'd appreciate any credit (financial or otherwise) that's
relevant, I would probably already have tried the system and
incorporated it in my work. If, at such a point, I'd realize the
value of your contribution I wouldn't hesitate paying for it. I
would probably even be willing to pay far more then (relieved
that I got the job done).
I have indeed done that for a package which a use a lot.

What Gilles already indicated is that you might benefit far more
by "selling your skills". With your particle system you have the
opportunity to show what you can do (as with lots of other
stuff). With such talents it's probably easier to earn a few
bucks then by selling a package in a freeware oriented
community. 

To get to the point: the main problem I see with your TOS is
that you depend on the honesty and good will of users, since you
have no way of protecting your package. It is exactly these
people who would probably share in their profits anyway (if any)
while the ones your setting the TOS up for wouldn't.
And I don't mind giving credit where credit's due but there
isn't always an appropriate place.

Still, as I said at the beginning, I can understand your point
of view.

CheerS!

Remco

Post a reply to this message

> I appreciate this discussion, so please don't hesitate to pursue your
> arguments further. It is not totally out of the question that I might
> make changes to some of the terms... :)


Heh, I'll give this a shot then. =)

Mainly, the only argument I have is a moral one. You have every right to ask
for compensation for commercial use. However, the whole thing about POV-Ray
itself is that it's free. If it weren't free, we wouldn't have the community
here that we do. We have people who use it for all different reasons, from
those just playing around to those using it professionally. It's the
*essence* of our community that there are no strings attached. We're all
just having fun with a program we like to use, and contributing to it in
some cases for no reason other than the benefit of the community. Heck,
there's even povlegal.doc that prohibits the use of the program
commercially.

Now, while this legal restriction doesn't apply to scene files themselves,
the *spirit* of POV-Ray and the POV-Ray community does. By asking for
something in return for your contribution, you're partially destroying that
spirit. Just like the rest of us, you learned a lot from this community and
from your use of POV-Ray over the years, and, most likely, you wouldn't have
been able to write those include files if it weren't for the fact that the
creators of the program let anyone use it for free, for any purpose. The
compensation we *all* get for contributing to the program is the
contributions of others. That, plus the fact that when someone else uses
your work, it makes you feel good. That's why I'm working on my little patch
right now; not in the hope of making a few bucks, but in the hope that
someone else will use it and think it's cool.

So, I think that's the best argument I can propose. I don't feel comfortable
using your particle system since it puts a restriction on me that if,
sometime in the future, I'm making an image for some commercial software,
and I reuse some of my old POV-Ray code that makes use of your particle
system, I'll have to resolve that issue.

It really is excellent. Just keep it free. =)

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Slime wrote:
> 
> > I appreciate this discussion, so please don't hesitate to pursue your
> > arguments further. It is not totally out of the question that I might
> > make changes to some of the terms... :)
> 
> Heh, I'll give this a shot then. =)
> 
> Mainly, the only argument I have is a moral one. You have every right to ask
> for compensation for commercial use. However, the whole thing about POV-Ray
> itself is that it's free. If it weren't free, we wouldn't have the community
> here that we do. We have people who use it for all different reasons, from
> those just playing around to those using it professionally. It's the
> *essence* of our community that there are no strings attached. We're all
> just having fun with a program we like to use, and contributing to it in
> some cases for no reason other than the benefit of the community. Heck,
> there's even povlegal.doc that prohibits the use of the program
> commercially.
> 
> Now, while this legal restriction doesn't apply to scene files themselves,
> the *spirit* of POV-Ray and the POV-Ray community does. By asking for
> something in return for your contribution, you're partially destroying that
> spirit. Just like the rest of us, you learned a lot from this community and
> from your use of POV-Ray over the years, and, most likely, you wouldn't have
> been able to write those include files if it weren't for the fact that the
> creators of the program let anyone use it for free, for any purpose. The
> compensation we *all* get for contributing to the program is the
> contributions of others. That, plus the fact that when someone else uses
> your work, it makes you feel good. That's why I'm working on my little patch
> right now; not in the hope of making a few bucks, but in the hope that
> someone else will use it and think it's cool.
> 
> So, I think that's the best argument I can propose. I don't feel comfortable
> using your particle system since it puts a restriction on me that if,
> sometime in the future, I'm making an image for some commercial software,
> and I reuse some of my old POV-Ray code that makes use of your particle
> system, I'll have to resolve that issue.
> 
> It really is excellent. Just keep it free. =)

You summed up my thoughts very well, plus I agree with Gilles and Remco.
It is almost like a slap in the face of the entire POV-Ray community and
came quite unexpectedly. It sets a new precedence and a possible turning
point in the way the include files are distributed and used. Kinda sad,
really.

Maybe I should place restrictions on the use of my links collection. If I were
to charge a nominal fee for every link accessed it would really help supplement
my meager income. Do you think anyone would mind?

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

I can't read Ken's mind so I could be wrong to say this. Maybe it's that
"derivative works" part that's unclear.

I remember when I first started with POV-Ray and the same wording was used
about the demo scenes, I think. Seemed obvious that you simply don't add
parts of other people's works into your own renderings and call them solely
your own (if stating anything at all for that matter). The gray area to me
would be whether a concept or idea or actual object is modified and used
without credit. Well, a modified object is certainly a derivative, right?
Anyway... again my point, like before, is about how this can get confusing
without precise and clear wording. I think you tried that, Rune, and I
understood it enough.

If the questionability comes down to usage of the includes and thereby a
person must relinquish sole ownership of whatever they make with them then I
can see the problem for casual, non-profit use. Of course all this hinges
upon "publishing" or uploads to the web, not at home use for example.

I grabbed a quote from the Terms Of Use which is the only part I think I
might muddle up:

"My files are for your enjoyment and education but may not be the basis of
any derivative works. Also, you may not alter, correct, or improve any of my
files in any way."

I always end up changing files in one way or another, it's second nature. I
try not to put them back out there without acknowledging that fact. Major
includes like yours are easier to refrain from sharing and spreading with
"modifications" though, simply because of their inherent complexity and so
changes are more studiously undertaken. For example, I doubt I ever e-mailed
anyone a changed a famous Colefax include. Simpler files are easier to
pollute without consciously reworking them, and they usually aren't
constrained to any kind of copyrighting in the first place.

Well, if I made any sense there, that's some of my input about the subject.
Basically, POV-Ray files are so morphable since anyone can edit the scripts,
unlike programming code. Perhaps this is the most difficult thing to refrain
from and the terms of use specifically warn against that. Should be plain to
everyone that they can't redistribute them, so that's not unclear to me at
all.

Or maybe Ken just likes picking on you Rune? ;-)
--
Farewell,
Bob

Post a reply to this message

"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3DB35B04.FFB0E06C@pacbell.net...
>
> Maybe I should place restrictions on the use of my links collection. If I
were
> to charge a nominal fee for every link accessed it would really help
supplement
> my meager income. Do you think anyone would mind?

I might owe a lot.

Post a reply to this message

"hughes, b." wrote:
> 
> "Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
> news:3DB35B04.FFB0E06C@pacbell.net...
> >
> > Maybe I should place restrictions on the use of my links collection. If I
> were
> > to charge a nominal fee for every link accessed it would really help
> supplement
> > my meager income. Do you think anyone would mind?
> 
> I might owe a lot.

According to the server stats for http://www.povray.org/resources/links/
it has received close to 10,000 hits already this month alone and there
are still 11 more days to go. The hits on the subpages is even greater
than that. If that's any indication of the popularity of that resource
the implications are staggering :)

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

"hughes, b." wrote:

> Or maybe Ken just likes picking on you Rune? ;-)

I wasn't picking on Rune. I was merely attempting to stimulate his
thought processes.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

In article <3db2c91c$1@news.povray.org>, run### [at] mobilixnetdk 
says...
> I don't feel that way. But then, I have very little money myself, which
> probably makes even worse the thought of other people making profit on
> my work.

I can't say I am particularly comfortable in either side of the fence. I 
find that increasingly you have to either wait around in hopes someone 
will put out an open source program that by some miracle contains the 
code you where looking for 3 months earlier, have to intentionally break 
the licenses of 6-7 people, each of who have a piece of something you 
need to get the job done, but all of who seem to think using the code for 
anything that make money is bad, or buy some software program that has 
all the features integrated and is totally useless because you can't use 
most of them the way you intended. It bugs the hell out of me... So in a 
general sense I do understand your view, but at the same time being not 
spectacularly skilled at 3D art, having so little money have trouble 
keeping my bank accounts open and being in no position to buy anything 
unless I absolutely 100% have to have it and can't find a something else 
to use instead, I also find your attitude seriously irritating. lol

I will probably take a look, but being another of those 'have very little 
money' people I doubt I will be using it even for my own personal use 
(which for things like this is imho a silly concept right from the 
beginning...).

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 17:18:29 +0200, "Rune"
<run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote:

>This can in no way be compared to the complexity it is to define any
>given surface in the term of a function. With the object approach you
>can have a CSG object with hundreds of primitives in it and make the
>particles collide with it, or you can use a mesh object for that matter.

Meshes are quite easy to define in terms of functions. Besides, what
Christoph is describing are force fields while what you are describing
are penalty functions. They are different and have different uses.

>That is next to impossible with functions. I don't see why you seem to
>think that it is such a great advantage to use function based
>environments, if you compare the pros and cons.

As I said, they are different approaches to the same problem.
Collision is a complex problem because it involves instant change in
momentum (which is never instant in reality), energy loss, extreme
stress gradients and whatever you can think of. Even for a pure
particle system, where you don't deal with volumes or deformable
bodies, collision is quite a challenge.

Using penalty functions (as you do) has the advantage that it is
generally simpler to implement and faster to compute. The problem is
that due to the infinite gradient of the penalty function (the
function being 0 outside the object and non-zero inside), it is
impossible to use higher-order integration methods.

With force fields (usually based on proximity functions), you always
get prolonged collisions. This can be problematic with steep collision
angles because the particle may actually gain energy from the field,
which is quite impossible, so care should be taken. On the bright
side, you can predict quite well the behavior of particles in such an
environment due to the well-defined energy gradients, so you can use
implicit integration methods for higher step sizes (see Baraff, David
and Witkin, Andrew."Large Steps in Cloth Simulation."
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~baraff/papers/sig98.pdf)

One could combine the best of both worlds, as Xavier Provot is doing
in his cloth simulations.

One could also use adaptive time steps. I haven't read anything on the
subject and so can't give you any links, but it seems like a pretty
obvious thing to do so I guess someone must have implemented it
already :)

Looking forward to further development.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
> 
> [...]
> Using penalty functions (as you do) has the advantage that it is
> generally simpler to implement and faster to compute. The problem is
> that due to the infinite gradient of the penalty function (the
> function being 0 outside the object and non-zero inside), it is
> impossible to use higher-order integration methods.

I'm not totally sure about the terminology but i always thought the force
based apprach is what's commonly called penalty methods.  What Rune uses
is
the classical impact rules based 'reflecting the velocity at the surface'.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> > The possibility of people abusing this seems extremely
> > remote in the case of POV-Ray.
> 
> Still, there are people who both can and will pay for a license to use
> my files commercially, and I'd like to take that opportunity for *me* to
> make a few bucks on the work I have done. And I think it's only fair.

I don't think it will work.  Think about what you will actually be
selling: You sell the right to use a program to make money.  Do you know
any product that successfully followed such a concept?  The only example i
can think of are free versions of compilers (for example Delphi) that are
not allowed to be used for commercial purposes.  But this is quite
different because such free versions are also restricted otherwise (no
support, older version) and are always introduced after the main product,
mainly as an advertisement system.

Your include file can be seen as a program processing data: you put in the
parameters and get out the particle positions.  So you in fact restrict
the usage of the data processed by your program.  This is perfectly legal
of course but very uncommon.  Also note that this is quite different from
the example of Poser freebies Gilles gave - there it is about restricting
the usage of data (i.e. models).

> 
> > Also, *** requiring *** people to give you credit
> > is too much to ask.
> 
> Why? I think it's quite common tendency for free things on the net,
> isn't it?

Maybe it is but don't mix it up with the requirement of credit when
producing derivative work (like in the BSD licence).

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:05:22 +0200, Christoph Hormann
<chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:

>I'm not totally sure about the terminology but i always thought the force
>based apprach is what's commonly called penalty methods.  What Rune uses
>is
>the classical impact rules based 'reflecting the velocity at the surface'.

Rune's approach is kinematic. A penalty function implies a dynamic
approach. However, the results are very similar.

Basically, a penalty function is such that it results in reversed
velocity in the next iteration. It always points normal to the surface
at the point of collision and it magnitude is such that the momentum
and kinetic energy of the particle are changed according to the laws
of (partially) elastic collision.


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> I appreciate this discussion, so please don't hesitate to pursue your
> arguments further. It is not totally out of the question that I might
> make changes to some of the terms... :)

  If you are about to change them, do it now: the arguments can be most 
clear than as Gilles exposed it. 

  In my case, I can only say that I downloaded your files, then read the 
TOS, and inmediately deleted your files... and I really wanted to use them 
(excelent work, indeed!). 

  The (inexistant) TOS under wich I release ALL my images is not compatible 
with your conditions... :( 

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

>   In my case, I can only say that I downloaded your files, then read the
> TOS, and inmediately deleted your files... and I really wanted to use them
> (excelent work, indeed!).

My reaction exactly. I'm afraid this isn't in the spirit of Pov which as Ken
has already said, "is kinda sad."

Mick

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>   The (inexistant) TOS under wich I release ALL my
> images is not compatible with your conditions... :(

Which part(s) of the conditions?

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote:
> It is almost like a slap in the face of the entire
> POV-Ray community and came quite unexpectedly.

That's quite strange, because I've had the same terms of use for years,
for all my include files. I even asked once in povray.off-topic (quite a
while ago) what people thought of the terms I used, and I didn't at all
get as negative responses as I do now.

> Maybe I should place restrictions on the use of my
> links collection. If I were to charge a nominal fee
> for every link accessed it would really help
> supplement my meager income. Do you think anyone
> would mind?

If it was kept free for non-commercial use, I certainly wouldn't mind.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Christoph Hormann wrote:
> Rune wrote:
>> Still, there are people who both can and will
>> pay for a license to use my files commercially,
>> and I'd like to take that opportunity for *me*
>> to make a few bucks on the work I have done.
>> And I think it's only fair.
>
> I don't think it will work.  Think about what you
> will actually be selling: You sell the right to
> use a program to make money.

Sounds sensible to me.

> Do you know any product that successfully followed
> such a concept?

I don't know what products have *successfully* used that concept, but
there sure seems to be a lot of programs that use it.
<http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22non%2Dcommercial+u
se%22>
(I know that not *all* of these are programs.)

Oh, and I've sold some commercial licenses for my other include files in
the past, so that would count as a successful example too.

And I don't see how it's so different from for example a poser mesh,
that you pose and texture yourself and then put in your scene. In both
cases, it is something that you can place in your scene, and there are
some things given, and some things that can be customized by the user.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> a écrit dans le message de news:
3db3368d@news.povray.org...
> It's a personal benefit. I have not given my files to the public domain,
> and I'd like to keep control of how and where they are distributed. That
> is not possible if people can distribute modified versions of my files
> as they please.

But people who don't put these sort of restrictions don't seem to suffer
from it. I certainly don't. So why the extra and unfriendly step ?

> Would you gain any profit from this? If yes, see above. If not, this
> might be a good situation to ask me for a special permission, since the
> situation is a bit special (commercial work where you don't get any
> profit yourself).

For me, while this type is reasoning makes sense at personal level ("I don't
want people to rip me off"), it is also an example of how things get out of
hand. If everyone acted like this, there would never have been a POV-Ray
community, and most people - including you and me - would never have been
acquainted with it.

Please, use your imagination and think hard about it : what if everyone was
doing that ? What sort of legalese hell would it be ?

> Still, there are people who both can and will pay for a license to use
> my files commercially, and I'd like to take that opportunity for *me* to
> make a few bucks on the work I have done. And I think it's only fair.

Come on... No one is making a living out of POV-Ray. We're spending money on
it. It cannot be used in the sort of professional environment that actually
brings money. Yes, there's the rare commissioned work, but selling posters
brings me, in average, a grand total of 15 Euros per image and per year. If
I'm using your macros in an image, how much do you want ? 1 Euro ? Sorry,
but it doesn't make much sense to depart from the tradition of exchange in
this community to get some pocket change. What sort of benefit is there in
it, for you and for everyone here ?

> As I've said, I can only appeal to people's honesty.

By requiring them to do it you imply that they're dishonest by default. It's
like putting "Customers, we remind you that you must pay for what you buy"
signs in a shop.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "selling my skills rather than the product
> itself".

I mean that the real value of your work is not in your macros but in your
skills. Unless your macros can be used as Maya plug-ins, you won't make
significant money out of them. However, by voluntarily limiting their
diffusion, you hurt yourself because of the lack of exposure you need as
someone with real 3D skills. If I was to make a commercial picture with them
(one which would end in a book or a record cover), THAT would mean real
advertising for your talent as a programmer, because I would certainly
credit you. In the past years, 3 companies have sent me free software for me
to use them and to be frank I'm the one who got ripped off because I
certainly made them make money :-)

> > OK, what if Chris Colefax, or Jaime or I start doing
> > the same... Or the POV-Team itself ? Anyone here want
> > to see that ?
>
> We surely couldn't blame them.

And we would never had this community. One thing that is great about it is
that people don't spend their time bitching about money lost and gained, and
who cheated who over what.
I saw the Poser community evolve that way, and it's ugly, but at least Poser
is a commercial product and there are people actually making a living out of
Poser-related products, so it's partly justified. This not the case for
POV-Ray.

> > Also, *** requiring *** people to give you credit
> > is too much to ask.
>
> Why? I think it's quite common tendency for free things on the net,
> isn't it?

Yes it's a trend and I don't see the point in following it. For all I know
it's only justified because people try to imitate the big names, possibly to
make themselves seem bigger. "Hey, I put an EULA on my crappy Poser prop,
I'm the next Bill Gates now". It's an ego trip and funnily enough it was
noted that the few real merchants offering freebies don't do it out of
respect for their customers, paying ones or not.
Again, there's nothing to lose by not doing it, it's simply more polite and
friendly.

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

I've changed the terms a bit again.

Still not free for commercial use, but the requirement for credits is
changed to a request. And the terms now say nothing about making
modified versions of my files, as long as they are not distributed.
http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp

Hope it's a bit better, though I realize that many will still not be
satisfied...

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:

> I've changed the terms a bit again.
> 
> Still not free for commercial use, but the requirement for credits is
> changed to a request. And the terms now say nothing about making
> modified versions of my files, as long as they are not distributed.
> http://runevision.com/welcome/terms/terms.asp
> 
> Hope it's a bit better, though I realize that many will still not be
> satisfied...

  It's fine for me. I can understand the "commercial" part, but the 
requirement for credits is something that I always find strange. People who 
are used to not give credits will not give them anyway, and honest people 
only needs a remainder as much. Such requirement, then, only takes away 
honest people... too bad. For the modifications permission (although I will 
never use it), it's also important: don't try to tell people what they 
can do when no one is looking. :)

  So, thanks: now I can make an image with it, and grant to everyone a free 
reproduction permission, without having to put the credits pasted onto the 
image (that's the only way I find to grant that every published copy of my 
image will have the required credits to you). I want to credit you, but I 
prefer to do it in a generic way trough my "techniques" section.

  Thanks again for the changes...  now it's time to try it! 

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres

La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> I don't know what products have *successfully* used that concept, 

By successful i meant profitable on it's own - none of the things returned
on the first page of that google search seems to comply with that. But i
see this is probably no argument for you since you clearly stated the
motive for the restriction is not making profit for you but preventing
others to make profit by using it.

> And I don't see how it's so different from for example a poser mesh,
> that you pose and texture yourself and then put in your scene. In both
> cases, it is something that you can place in your scene, and there are
> some things given, and some things that can be customized by the user.

The difference is that if you use a poser mesh, the original work (the
poser mesh) is always part of the derived work (mostly in 2D of course,
but that does not matter).  When using your include file the original work
is not part of the result, it's only the data processed by your file
that's visible.  

It's a bit like selling a lawn mower but restricting it's use to backyards
and forbidding to mow frontyards... ;-)

But i don't want to overemphasize this argument, the more important thing
is the community aspect others have mentioned.  I find it commendable you
already changed your terms in many aspects because of the feedback you
got.  Concerning the remaining restrictions and maybe future tools you
publish i would suggest you think about how you profited from the work of
the other members of the POV-community (not necessarily financially but
also personally - for me this is no elementary difference) who publish
their work without such restrictions, answer questions on the newsserver,
develop new patches for POV-Ray you can use without paying anything and
comment on your work.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, IsoWood include,                 
TransSkin and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/  
Last updated 13 Aug. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>   It's fine for me. I can understand the "commercial" part,
> but the requirement for credits is something that I always
> find strange.

>   Thanks again for the changes...  now it's time to try it!

Well that makes me happy. :)

The terms written in the documentation of the particle system itself are
not yet updated. They soon will be though, so you can just ignore the
old terms there.

Rune
--
3D images and anims, include files, tutorials and more:
rune|vision:  http://runevision.com (updated Oct 19)
POV-Ray Ring: http://webring.povray.co.uk

Post a reply to this message

(I don't know quite what to quote here; those following the thread will 
presumably know what I'm responding to, so hopefully I'll be forgiven.)

All I can do here is reiterate things that others have said, in the hope 
that one of us will be able to make you see or agree with something 
where the others fail. With that said, I'm going to take a different 
tack from the people protesting on moral grounds, and go straight to the 
practical argument.

Rune, who do you think is going to pay you for commercial use of your 
particle system (or indeed anything else that you add to POV-Ray's bag 
of tricks)? Professional CG artists are far more likely to use 3DSMAX or 
Maya or something; they're not going to pay you for some "useless" bit 
of POV script. People like Gilles Tran aren't going to pay you; they'll 
just not use your work. And then there are the people like me - 
unashamed software pirates - who would happily use your work and not 
give you a dime or a shred of credit, in the belief that information is 
inherently free and that artificial limitations on its freedom can and 
should be ignored.

When you get right down to it, do you *really* have any customers at 
all? And even if you had, say, four or five, would their small financial 
contributions really be worth the time you spent making your particle 
system? Would they justify the fact that almost no one else is using 
your code for anything? Would their contributions be more valuable than 
free third-party improvements to your code?

One other thing (and here I dip into the moral argument): if you feel 
that people are entitled to monetary compensation for their intellectual 
work if others use it for financial gain, then how have you compensated 
others for *their* intellectual work, which *you* are now using for 
commercial gain? Have you paid the members of the POV Team for their 
work in creating and maintaining POV-Ray? Have you donated money to keep 
this news server running, and did you pay for ad space to advertise your 
product? Have you sent off checks to the people whose work on particle 
systems you probably used in making your own, and the people who 
published that work? Did you pay posters here for any suggestions or 
help they might have given you?

If not, then you're a hypocrite, and you deserve to have your work 
stolen from you and used without compensation, just as you have used 
others' resources without compensation.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

I'm not taking sides here and don't want to become
part of the discussion (I'll put a TOS of my own on
my website soon enough, my own particle system
is also in the final run), simply because I'm just
a spectator on this matter. Don't have time to
check newsgroups often these days, and reading
everything is definitely not in my schedule...

But I think this last part about being a hypocrite was
a little too aggressive. I do agree that POV is a
utility hardly anyone uses to make profit with, so
actually I think that the scripts coded with POV-SDL
are part of a hobby. Anyone seriously using POV
could write a simple one himself, if there is need.

But thats not the point of releasing include-files, is it?

Now that I've said that, I think I'll shut up again and
leave more competent people do the talking. I don't
feel like this is a bashing of Rune, more like some
fundamental discussion regarding TOS of POV and
of scripts used by POV, and it just "happened" that
Rune took a side others dont agree with.

So, no offense, anyone.

Regards,
Tim


--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

> (I don't know quite what to quote here; those following the thread will
> presumably know what I'm responding to, so hopefully I'll be forgiven.)
>
> All I can do here is reiterate things that others have said, in the hope
> that one of us will be able to make you see or agree with something
> where the others fail. With that said, I'm going to take a different
> tack from the people protesting on moral grounds, and go straight to the
> practical argument.
>
> Rune, who do you think is going to pay you for commercial use of your
> particle system (or indeed anything else that you add to POV-Ray's bag
> of tricks)? Professional CG artists are far more likely to use 3DSMAX or
> Maya or something; they're not going to pay you for some "useless" bit
> of POV script. People like Gilles Tran aren't going to pay you; they'll
> just not use your work. And then there are the people like me -
> unashamed software pirates - who would happily use your work and not
> give you a dime or a shred of credit, in the belief that information is
> inherently free and that artificial limitations on its freedom can and
> should be ignored.
>
> When you get right down to it, do you *really* have any customers at
> all? And even if you had, say, four or five, would their small financial
> contributions really be worth the time you spent making your particle
> system? Would they justify the fact that almost no one else is using
> your code for anything? Would their contributions be more valuable than
> free third-party improvements to your code?
>
> One other thing (and here I dip into the moral argument): if you feel
> that people are entitled to monetary compensation for their intellectual
> work if others use it for financial gain, then how have you compensated
> others for *their* intellectual work, which *you* are now using for
> commercial gain? Have you paid the members of the POV Team for their
> work in creating and maintaining POV-Ray? Have you donated money to keep
> this news server running, and did you pay for ad space to advertise your
> product? Have you sent off checks to the people whose work on particle
> systems you probably used in making your own, and the people who
> published that work? Did you pay posters here for any suggestions or
> help they might have given you?
>
> If not, then you're a hypocrite, and you deserve to have your work
> stolen from you and used without compensation, just as you have used
> others' resources without compensation.
>
> -Xplo
>

Post a reply to this message

Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 
> 
> If not, then you're a hypocrite, and you deserve to have your work
> stolen from you and used without compensation, just as you have used
> others' resources without compensation.
> 
> -Xplo

That's a bit over the top, especially from someone who admits to
pirating.

I think your practical remarks made some sense, but still it's
up to the creator of a package to decide what to do with it and
your last few lines don't really help much here.
It's unreasonable to expect from someone that he has to shower
cash around before he's entitled to make a buck.
But then again, piracy and reason seldom go together...

Remco

Post a reply to this message

"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
3db48cf7@news.povray.org...
> of POV script. People like Gilles Tran aren't going to pay you; they'll
> just not use your work.

No. I don't mind paying people for their work when it's valuable. After all,
like many hobbyists, I already pay (too much!) for my hobby. In this light,
paying for Rune's work doesn't seem unreasonable. To be frank, if I were
considering Rune's macros for a big animation project for a client, I
wouldn't object to pay him because it would save me time and money. It would
be a business decision. It's extremely theoretical though : not only POV-Ray
hobbyists are not very competitive marketwise, but there are dozens of
particle plug-ins in commercial software and thousands of starving graphic
3D artists who know how to use them.
But it doesn't make the idea of commercial POV-Ray script less unsettling,
considering how things had been working until now. Here's some Pandora's
box...

G.

--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 3db48cf7@news.povray.org...
> 
>>of POV script. People like Gilles Tran aren't going to pay you; they'll
>>just not use your work.
> 
> 
> No. I don't mind paying people for their work when it's valuable.

I recall you saying that because of the licensing terms, you wouldn't be 
using Rune's particle system. My apologies if I have somehow 
misunderstood you and misrepresented your position; I was only trying to 
use you as an example.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Remco de Korte wrote:
> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 
>>
>>If not, then you're a hypocrite, and you deserve to have your work
>>stolen from you and used without compensation, just as you have used
>>others' resources without compensation.
> 
> That's a bit over the top, especially from someone who admits to
> pirating.

I don't see why. I'm not the one trying to sell software here. How am I 
acting against my stated position? And I was trying to make a point.

As far as my usage of the word "hypocrite" to describe Rune being 
excessive, I don't think so. All he has to do to not be a hypocrite in 
my opinion is to either free his code or compensate anyone who helped 
him develop it (directly or otherwise) as that would be only fair. If he 
wishes to do neither of these, then I say: if the shoe fits, wear it.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

3db5399e@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
> I recall you saying that because of the licensing terms, you wouldn't be
> using Rune's particle system.

In the first version of the TOS it was non-commercial only (or to that
effect) so I couldn't use the macros but the new version of the TOS is
clearer, if not really satisfying ;-)

G.
--

**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> a écrit dans le message de news:

Post a reply to this message