 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm wondering why the POV license doesn't conform to the Debian Free
Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines)
or Open Source Definition (it's basically the same thing). Why do they
not modify the license to make it conform and so then people would know
that is for sure free (I think that $0.08 thing is pretty stupid, but I
know there is more than just that that does not conform.
ndogg
haw### [at] crosswinds net
http://ndogg.n3.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Rene Horn" <haw### [at] crosswindsnet> wrote in message
news:390### [at] crosswindsnet...
> I'm wondering why the POV license doesn't conform to the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines
Because it is their work and they don't want to...?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
>
> "Rene Horn" <haw### [at] crosswindsnet> wrote in message
> news:390### [at] crosswindsnet...
> > I'm wondering why the POV license doesn't conform to the Debian Free
> > Software Guidelines
>
> Because it is their work and they don't want to...?
That pretty much sums it up.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
*looks at Mr DeWitt's words*
I really couldn't have said it better myself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Lance Birch" <-> wrote :
>
> I really couldn't have said it better myself.
>
I thank God that I have always had this remarkable mental ability to
somehow intuitively grasp the completely obvious.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Wonderful work, keep it up :)
--
Lance
The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Lance Birch" <-> wrote :
>
> Wonderful work,
If only I could find a way to get paid for it...
> keep it up :)
I can't stop, it's like Disco fever...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bill DeWitt wrote:
> I can't stop, it's like Disco fever...
I was just in a router called Disco... *insert spooky coincidence music
here*
--
Lance
The Zone
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3901a05b@news.povray.org> , "Bill DeWitt"
<the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>
> "Rene Horn" <haw### [at] crosswindsnet> wrote in message
> news:390### [at] crosswindsnet...
>> I'm wondering why the POV license doesn't conform to the Debian Free
>> Software Guidelines
>
> Because it is their work and they don't want to...?
>
It should also be clear that POV-Ray is _older_ (1991) than the Debian
license (1997) - a lot of people tend to forget that free(ware) software did
not start with Linux and its distributions.
Thorsten
PS: The usual disclaimer applies. Speaking for myself, not for the team.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> Bill DeWitt wrote:
> > I can't stop, it's like Disco fever...
>
> I was just in a router called Disco... *insert spooky coincidence music
> here*
>
Will you guys take it outside?!
Just kidding...
I am really enjoying this, tho ;-)
-
Noam Lewis
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: a lot of people tend to forget that free(ware) software did
: not start with Linux and its distributions.
Would you believe that there are people out there who don't know that
Unix is very much older than Linux, even older than Windows or even the
archaic DOS?
If I remember right, the first Unix operating system was developed in
the 60's from a bigger OS called Multix (DOS was developed in 79 or 80).
There's a computer term dictionary (in finnish) in the internet which
says something like this:
Unix: Operating system derived from Linux which is mostly used in Universities
and big companies.
Funny enough, Linux was developed in the 90's, more than 20 years after
the first Unix.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Would you believe that there are people out there who don't know that
> Unix is very much older than Linux, even older than Windows or even the
> archaic DOS?
Why not? It is useless trivia :)
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
: Why not? It is useless trivia :)
Actually it's far from useless. It saves you from making yourself a
complete fool when talking about the issue.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Margus Ramst <mar### [at] peakeduee> wrote:
> : Why not? It is useless trivia :)
>
> Actually it's far from useless. It saves you from making yourself a
> complete fool when talking about the issue.
It's only an issue if you choose to make it one :)
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Actually it's far from useless. It saves you from making yourself a
> complete fool when talking about the issue.
>
Then don't talk about the issue! You can never know everything. I assure you,
it's quite OK.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> : a lot of people tend to forget that free(ware) software did
> : not start with Linux and its distributions.
>
> Would you believe that there are people out there who don't know that
> Unix is very much older than Linux, even older than Windows or even the
> archaic DOS?
And there are probably some Win users that think that "MS-DOS"
is just a WIndows add-on, designed to frighten them with a text-based
black screen thing...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3901a05b@news.povray.org> , "Bill DeWitt"
> <the### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Rene Horn" <haw### [at] crosswindsnet> wrote in message
> > news:390### [at] crosswindsnet...
> >> I'm wondering why the POV license doesn't conform to the Debian Free
> >> Software Guidelines
> >
> > Because it is their work and they don't want to...?
> >
>
> It should also be clear that POV-Ray is _older_ (1991) than the Debian
> license (1997) - a lot of people tend to forget that free(ware) software did
> not start with Linux and its distributions.
>
> Thorsten
>
> PS: The usual disclaimer applies. Speaking for myself, not for the team.
I know, I just think that it's maybe a time for a change. I realize that
POV-Ray is older and my hope in posting this is that the creators might think
about that.
--
ndogg
http://ndogg.n3.net
Justice only comes when the perpetrator understands and changes.
Repentence comes with the understanding and change.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A little precision, based upond things I've read some time ago,
from the Pov-Team :
Some of the (numerous) authors of some parts of the POV code
want to be assured that their (hard) work won't be reincorporated
in something else without their consent.
That's why most common open-stuff license (GNU,...) aren't
applicable as-is to POV-Ray.
Remember that pov is "copyrighted freeware", and if you read
the docs, you'll see that it even has a price ! (20$, I think)
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3902F90D.D98B5AA5@crosswinds.net>, Rene Horn
<haw### [at] crosswindsnet> wrote:
> I know, I just think that it's maybe a time for a change. I realize that
> POV-Ray is older and my hope in posting this is that the creators might
> think about that.
Why? What benefits would it have? What problems with the current license
would be solved by changing it?
The license definitely won't be changed if that is the only reason you
can come up with. I don't think any of the POV-Team members(or anyone at
all) would enjoy spending their free time writing a new license or
moving POV to a new one "just for the heck of it".
--
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If I remember right, the first Unix operating system was developed in
> the 60's from a bigger OS called Multix (DOS was [reverse engineered] in 79 or
> 80).
*cough*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote...
>
> Why? What benefits would it have? What problems with the current license
> would be solved by changing it?
> The license definitely won't be changed if that is the only reason you
> can come up with. I don't think any of the POV-Team members(or anyone at
> all) would enjoy spending their free time writing a new license or
> moving POV to a new one "just for the heck of it".
As you mention, the license shouldn't be changed 'just for the heck of it'.
However, there are some benifits (and drawbacks) of alternative licenses.
These issues will have to be discussed more in depth before further action
is taken, and currently a lot of time is being spent on the release of POV
3.5, so not much time is available for license discussions.
-Nathan Kopp
(I speak for myself alone and not for the POV-Team.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:40:19 -0500, David Fontaine wrote:
>Warp wrote:
>
>> If I remember right, the first Unix operating system was developed in
>> the 60's from a bigger OS called Multix (DOS was [reverse engineered] in 79 or
>> 80).
>
>*cough*
Cough, indeed. DOS wasn't reverse engineered, it was written from scratch
with the intent of being backward compatible with CP/M. It just wasn't
written by Herr Gates as he likes to claim.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
These are my opinions. I do NOT speak for the POV-Team.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Huff" <chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:chrishuff_99-3A920E.21045423042000@news.povray.org...
> In article <3902F90D.D98B5AA5@crosswinds.net>, Rene Horn
> <haw### [at] crosswindsnet> wrote:
>
> > I know, I just think that it's maybe a time for a change. I realize
that
> > POV-Ray is older and my hope in posting this is that the creators
might
> > think about that.
>
> Why? What benefits would it have? What problems with the current
license
> would be solved by changing it?
> The license definitely won't be changed if that is the only reason you
> can come up with. I don't think any of the POV-Team members(or anyone
at
> all) would enjoy spending their free time writing a new license or
> moving POV to a new one "just for the heck of it".
One reason that jumps to mind:
If POV had a GNU license, you could take out parts of POV's code and
integrate it into your own projects, as long as you distributed your
application with the GNU license (and for free) too.
This would help a lot of people that would like to integrate POV's
parsing code into for example a modeller, which could then "read" POV
files.
The POV team would insofar loose its control over the applications into
which their code is integrated, but it would not allow anyone to make
money with the POV code, because the new product would also have to use
the GNU license.
Johannes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Rene Horn <haw### [at] crosswindsnet> wrote in message
news:390### [at] crosswindsnet...
> I'm wondering why the POV license doesn't conform to the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines)
> or Open Source Definition (it's basically the same thing). Why do they
> not modify the license to make it conform and so then people would know
> that is for sure free (I think that $0.08 thing is pretty stupid, but I
> know there is more than just that that does not conform.
>
> ndogg
> haw### [at] crosswindsnet
> http://ndogg.n3.net
>
I already ask similar questions about one year ago and I had been subject to
a nice cyber etnic cleansing!!!
I you want something else, check GNU Panorama project.
Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit
www.geocities.com/alexcoppo/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 20:20:35 -0500, Rene Horn wrote:
>I'm wondering why the POV license doesn't conform to the Debian Free
>Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines)
>or Open Source Definition (it's basically the same thing). Why do they
>not modify the license to make it conform and so then people would know
>that is for sure free (I think that $0.08 thing is pretty stupid, but I
>know there is more than just that that does not conform.
Never read the license, I'm too busy raytracing.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:50pm up 4 days, 1:07, 3 users, load average: 1.30, 1.20, 1.16
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 00:50:44 +1000, Lance Birch wrote:
>Bill DeWitt wrote:
>> I can't stop, it's like Disco fever...
>
>I was just in a router called Disco... *insert spooky coincidence music
>here*
My pov stuff comes over through a router called Disco sometimes, I think
it's in DC if I remember correctly.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:50pm up 4 days, 1:07, 3 users, load average: 1.30, 1.20, 1.16
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 08:22:21 -0500, Rene Horn wrote:
>
>I know, I just think that it's maybe a time for a change. I realize that
>POV-Ray is older and my hope in posting this is that the creators might think
>about that.
>
This thread reminds me of when I was a student, people used to ask me why
I didn't have a TV license (it's ilegal not to have one here in the UK),
my answer was always that the TV works perfectly without one.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
3:50pm up 4 days, 1:07, 3 users, load average: 1.30, 1.20, 1.16
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
> Cough, indeed. DOS wasn't reverse engineered, it was written from scratch
> with the intent of being backward compatible with CP/M. It just wasn't
> written by Herr Gates as he likes to claim.
Well, I haven't heard that version, but I'll believe it. Still, though, if it wasn't
written by Gates as he likes to claim...
Kinda like when the transistor was stolen by what's-his-name's research partners...
--
___ _______________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Steve wrote:
> Never read the license, I'm too busy raytracing.
Yup!
--
___ _______________________________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet> <ICQ 55354965>
|_/avid |ontaine http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad." -Dali
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fabien Mosen wrote:
> Some of the (numerous) authors of some parts of the POV code
> want to be assured that their (hard) work won't be reincorporated
> in something else without their consent.
>
> That's why most common open-stuff license (GNU,...) aren't
> applicable as-is to POV-Ray.
Quite so. That was always my understanding. Now for the 25 cent
question: If 4.0 were a complete rebuild in C++ (or whatever
language) wouldn't this mean that the current team members alone
would be able to decide what (if any) changes should go into the
new license from that point onward?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Charles Fusner wrote:
>
> Fabien Mosen wrote:
> > Some of the (numerous) authors of some parts of the POV code
> > want to be assured that their (hard) work won't be reincorporated
> > in something else without their consent.
> >
> > That's why most common open-stuff license (GNU,...) aren't
> > applicable as-is to POV-Ray.
>
> Quite so. That was always my understanding. Now for the 25 cent
> question: If 4.0 were a complete rebuild in C++ (or whatever
> language) wouldn't this mean that the current team members alone
> would be able to decide what (if any) changes should go into the
> new license from that point onward?
One (like me for example) might argue that while the programming
language might change many of the algorithms the the current code
is based on will remain functionally the same.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:43:41 +0200, "Johannes Hubert" <jht### [at] mailacom>
wrote:
>If POV had a GNU license, you could take out parts of POV's code and
>integrate it into your own projects, as long as you distributed your
>application with the GNU license (and for free) too.
>This would help a lot of people that would like to integrate POV's
>parsing code into for example a modeller, which could then "read" POV
>files.
>
>The POV team would insofar loose its control over the applications into
>which their code is integrated, but it would not allow anyone to make
>money with the POV code, because the new product would also have to use
>the GNU license.
As far as I understand the GNU license, it doesn't prohibit people to
make money of a product covered by the license, and it was never the
idea behind it either.
This is borrowed from www.gnu.org:
************************************************************************
"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the
concept, you should think of "free speech", not "free beer."
"Free software" refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to
four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access
to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus,
you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other
things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
************************************************************************
Sven-Erik Andersen
----
sve### [at] andersenas
sea### [at] mailcitycom
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Program/2549/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> One (like me for example) might argue that while the programming
> language might change many of the algorithms the the current code
> is based on will remain functionally the same.
Heh. OK, Ken, just trying to stir up trouble, I was. (Hey, you're
a bad influence, what can I say <g>), but what's the difference
between, say, using the original source only as a functionality
and compatibility reference and effectively rebuilding the functions
and data structures as full fledged classes, and, using the source
for "educational purposes" in writing your own library functions.
For example, the POV parser that someone wrote: In order to comply
with POV-Legal as it currently stands, this parser had to have
been written from the ground up, but it still reads POV source code
so how different is it practically speaking from the native POV
parsing code?
If the team, with full knowledge of POV's inner workings sat down
and rebuilt the raytracer such that it's native language and
available functions were backward compatible with the existing
executables, yet the code were completely reworked internally,
how many shades of grey must we cross before it isn't the same
code any more? Or have we opened the whole LZW "patent on an
algorythm" can o' worms again?
Sorry, I'm a trouble maker, I know. Per'aps I should jest shut
up and sit in a corner mind me own business...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 22:11:05 +0200, Fabien Mosen wrote:
> Some of the (numerous) authors of some parts of the POV code
>want to be assured that their (hard) work won't be reincorporated
>in something else without their consent.
Why? If I would contribute some code to POV, I would be more than happy
if my code shows up in other Open Source projects, too. OTOH, if I
contributed something to POV, I would find it only fair if I could use
parts of POV in my other projects.
> That's why most common open-stuff license (GNU,...) aren't
>applicable as-is to POV-Ray.
The GPL is quite good at ensuring that nothing that was ever under the
GPL could ever be "un-GPLed". If povray was under the GPL, yes, somebody
could incorporate the povray parser into a modeller or
povray-to-xml-converter or whatever. But their code would be under the
GPL, too, so if you can use some of the code, you could just incorporate
it into povray.
> Remember that pov is "copyrighted freeware",
RMS would debate the term "freeware" here :-) and GPL software is
copyrighted, too.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 21:45:10 GMT, Sven-Erik Andersen wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:43:41 +0200, "Johannes Hubert" <jht### [at] mailacom>
>wrote:
>>The POV team would insofar loose its control over the applications
>>into which their code is integrated, but it would not allow anyone to
>>make money with the POV code, because the new product would also have
>>to use the GNU license.
>
>As far as I understand the GNU license, it doesn't prohibit people to
>make money of a product covered by the license, and it was never the
>idea behind it either.
This is correct. However, since you cannot keep anyone from distributing
a GPL'ed program, you cannot make make money by selling the program
itself. If you sell the program for $1000, somebody will just burn it on
1000 CDs and sell them for $10 each. You can, however, make money by
distributing the software ("POVray + printed manual for only $29"),
by giving support ("Problems with POVray? You can call us 24x7 for only
$1000 per month"), or by improving it ("You need NURBS and you need them
next month? We'll implement them for only $10000").
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
> This is correct. However, since you cannot keep anyone from distributing
> a GPL'ed program, you cannot make make money by selling the program
> itself. If you sell the program for $1000, somebody will just burn it on
> 1000 CDs and sell them for $10 each. You can, however, make money by
> distributing the software ("POVray + printed manual for only $29"),
> by giving support ("Problems with POVray? You can call us 24x7 for only
> $1000 per month"), or by improving it ("You need NURBS and you need them
> next month? We'll implement them for only $10000").
And think of the customer service problems this creates for the current
developers of POV-Ray. Someone gets a modified version of the program
and finds bugs in it. They discover povray.org on the net and fire off
a bug report. The POV-Team has to take the time to inform this person
that they do not support that particualar version of POV-Ray. The POV-Team
has better things to do with their free time than to deal with hassles
like this. Then there is the issue that someone else can make money
from their hard work without any responsibility to compensate them for
it. Is that fair ? GPL may work for some people or organizations but
the POV-Team has adopted the current licensing restricions for reasons
that suit the way they are structured and operate.
--
Ken Tyler - 1400+ POV-Ray, Graphics, 3D Rendering, and Raytracing Links:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html http://www.povray.org/links/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> And think of the customer service problems this creates for the current
> developers of POV-Ray. Someone gets a modified version of the program
> and finds bugs in it. They discover povray.org on the net and fire off
> a bug report.
Actually, that's still a probable scenario with the current custom patches. Of
course a GPL-ed program is likely to generate more numerous and varied
spin-offs.
--
Margus Ramst
Personal e-mail: mar### [at] peakeduee
TAG (Team Assistance Group) e-mail: mar### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Sven-Erik Andersen" <sea### [at] mailcitycom> wrote in message
news:390610ba.655322513@204.213.191.228...
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 12:43:41 +0200, "Johannes Hubert" <jht### [at] mailacom>
> wrote:
> >If POV had a GNU license, you could take out parts of POV's code and
> >integrate it into your own projects, as long as you distributed your
> >application with the GNU license (and for free) too.
> >This would help a lot of people that would like to integrate POV's
> >parsing code into for example a modeller, which could then "read" POV
> >files.
> >
> >The POV team would insofar loose its control over the applications
into
> >which their code is integrated, but it would not allow anyone to make
> >money with the POV code, because the new product would also have to
use
> >the GNU license.
>
> As far as I understand the GNU license, it doesn't prohibit people to
> make money of a product covered by the license, and it was never the
> idea behind it either.
Well yes, but nobody would stop them from writing their license like
GNU, just with the added "if you use our code for your application, then
you must distribute the application for *free*, and you must distribute
it with full source code, and you must provide your own support to the
users, etc. etc."
This is more or less like it is now, with the difference, that now you
can only use their code to write a custom version of POV-Ray, with this
more general license, you could use (parts) of their code in other (free
and open source) applications.
Johannes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:10:46 -0700, Ken wrote:
>
>"Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>
>> This is correct. However, since you cannot keep anyone from
>> distributing a GPL'ed program, you cannot make make money by selling
>> the program itself. If you sell the program for $1000, somebody
>> will just burn it on 1000 CDs and sell them for $10 each. You can,
>> however, make money by distributing the software ("POVray + printed
>> manual for only $29"), by giving support ("Problems with POVray? You
>> can call us 24x7 for only $1000 per month"), or by improving it ("You
>> need NURBS and you need them next month? We'll implement them for
>> only $10000").
>
>And think of the customer service problems this creates for the current
>developers of POV-Ray. Someone gets a modified version of the program
>and finds bugs in it. They discover povray.org on the net and fire off
>a bug report.
This doesn't seem to be much of a problem for most GPL software. Patches
usually either get merged back into the main source pretty quickly or
stay obscure. Source splits are rare, but when they happen (Emacs vs.
XEmacs, gcc vs. egcs vs. pgcc) it is usually quite clear that the
programs have different maintainers. Also note that the POV license
doesn't forbid to distribute modified versions of POVray, so this could
happen anyway (yes, I know the "This is an unofficial version of povray"
message).
Of course you can choose to license your program under whatever
conditions you like. I am just wondering why you feel that the GPL isn't
suitable, given that it has worked well for a lot of people for at least
15 years or so.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Nicht an Tueren mangelt es,
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | sondern an der Einrichtung (aka Content).
| | | hjp### [at] wsracat | -- Ale### [at] univieacat
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | zum Thema Portale in at.linux
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:3904D590.D3273C27@pacbell.net...
> One (like me for example) might argue that while the programming
> language might change many of the algorithms the the current code
> is based on will remain functionally the same.
But then another (like me for example) may argue (purely for the sake of
doing so) like a black wildebeest that no-one should be able to own or
control the use of algorithms.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
