 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah... old POVers never die, they just trace at 0 pps...
:)
Welcome back David! :D
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Alessandro Coppo" <a.c### [at] iol it> wrote in <3a68de3d$1@news.povray.org>:
>
>David Buck wrote in message <3A6### [at] simberoncom>...
>>These days, I'm working as a Smalltalk consultant. (Did you know that
>>DKBTrace and POV-Ray had some Smalltalk concepts built into them?)
>
>Looking at the code I saw that it is just a few days work from becoming a
>complete C++ source. By the way, had not POV one of the most
>anti-free-software licenses I ever saw (barring commercial software), I
>would gladly do this job myself.
>
>Alessandro Coppo
>a.c### [at] iolit
>
>P.S.: a GREAT thank you for having started all this!
>
>
>
>
I agree that the PovRay license is currently inadequate. In fact, I think
their whole software development philosophy is counter-productive... If
they would just OpenSource it like most other free projects out there, and
allow an open development process (similar to Linux), we wouldn't have to
all be sitting here waiting in the dark for the next release. Of coarse, I
shouldn't be complaining, considering that PovRay is just plain awesome,
but sometimes I get frustrated. Just my 2 cents.
Hookflash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> > These days, I'm working as a Smalltalk consultant. (Did you know that
> > DKBTrace and POV-Ray had some Smalltalk concepts built into them?)
>
> I'd noticed some OOP stuff in the code, the object methods for instance.
> Or were you speaking of the scene language?
> I'm currently learning Objective C, an OOP extended version of C which
> apparently borrowed most of it's concepts from Smalltalk.
I was referring to the method table dispatch to make different objects work
the same way. It was a technique I learned in Smalltalk in 1984.
> > I'm also working hard on a commercial program which is a fun physics
> > simulation package for kids. You can see a preview of the screen on
> > http://www.simberon.com. I hope to have a public beta soon and a
> > release in a few months.
>
> Sounds interesting, though there isn't much info on the page...
> I suppose you'll want to finish the program first, though. ;-)
Yeah, the web page isn't very good unless there's a program to go with it.
I'll let you know when the beta is available.
David Buck
dav### [at] simberoncom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
> Ah... old POVers never die, they just trace at 0 pps...
>
> :)
>
> Welcome back David! :D
Oh great, I just realized, we have yet another David here now. >;)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote:
> Well, no...actually, I have no idea what you are talking about, aside
> from the arrangement of a camera looking at it's own output.
Well, I've never seen the examples in the books, but I have seen a video
feedback loop. Pretty psychedelic :) Unfortunately, POVray works in an
"ideal" universe, in which such things as feedback noise don't have an effect.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2001 21:37:22 -0500, hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash)
wrote:
>I agree that the PovRay license is currently inadequate.
No it is not. A lot of the code in POV-Ray has been donated by
individuals for the sole purpose of being used in POV-Ray. Many of
them cannot be reached now (for example Pascal Massimino, author of
the julia code). Their copyrights have to be protected so the license
clearly states that a) you can tweak all you want at home and b) you
have to keep POV-Ray being POV-Ray, i.e. you can't just extract the
parser and plug it into your own tracer, for example.
>In fact, I think their whole software development philosophy is
>counter-productive...
An opinion which is wholly outweighed by the number of patches people
have been writing. Were it not for the numerous patch writers and
especially Ron Parker and Nathan Kopp, POV would have never reached
the heights that it now stands on. And it is because of the
availability of the source that all this is possible.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:45:01 -0500, David Buck wrote...
> Hi all. I just found this newsgroup recently and I'm amazed at all the
> traffic on it. It seems that POV-Ray has come a long way form it's
> humble beginnings back in '85 or so. I'm the author of DKBTrace which,
> you may know, is the predecessor of POV-Ray. I offered the DKBTrace
> source to the POV-Ray team as a base system and I served on the POV-Ray
> team for about two years.
>
> What exciting things are happening these days in the POV-Ray world? I'm
> seeing some amazing things posted on the net.
Congratulations, you're responsible for the single most long lived piece
of software on my computer. By that, I mean it's been installed on every
system I've owned since about 1993 when I had a 486DX2/66 with 4 Megs of
Ram... (the fact that I've now got more RAM in my system than I had HDD
space in my first system is beside the point :)
Bye for now,
Jamie.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3A6### [at] hotmailcom>, Ben Chambers
<bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Well, I've never seen the examples in the books, but I have seen a video
> feedback loop. Pretty psychedelic :) Unfortunately, POVray works in an
> "ideal" universe, in which such things as feedback noise don't have an
> effect.
Hint: you can turbulate (and apply other warps to) portals. :-)
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote in message ...
>On 19 Jan 2001 21:37:22 -0500, hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash)
>wrote:
>
>>I agree that the PovRay license is currently inadequate.
>
>No it is not.
Just an example: may I study the source and the algorithms and use this
knowledge indipendently? Some are documented in books like Foley/VanDam etc.
so in fact you can only quarrel about the actual code (or we have to start
talking about prior art instead of raytraced art?)
If the license is not going to switch to an OSI (Open Source Initiative)
approved one (there are 20+ if I remember well, so you (PovTeam members) can
easily find one that suits you).... well, with new versions coming out at ~3
years interval (glacial rate for OpenSource projects), and the current POV
license I am tempted not to find alternatives (can you spell Ray++ (LGPL) or
Panorama (GPL) or Raja (GPL)?), but to write them. This is not an empty
threat. I am currently working at a Java tool which completely (well, in the
future ;-)) maps POV language and can emit it, becoming the core for a
super-macro engine (describe your scene in Java + all libraries you need
plus all the power of Java and then just tell it to emit #macro-less pov
code to be rendered by POV or MegaPOV, may be even driving the command line
version of the engine). In a few days work I have created a working
prototype which I want to refine before releasing. Given the knowledge about
raytracing I have gathered from references, I think I might even have a
partial POV-clone on air before Christmas... which is something which tempts
me much if the license is so adequate... (and if you say Java is slow, well
I have experience of very fast ports from Java to C++ at the rate of several
classes per day).
I really (and I am sure there are many other people like me) would like to
cooperate DIRECTLY to POVRay and not creat YACRC (yet another clean room
clone), but NOT at the current conditions.
Well, it was said a few months ago on this newsserver that this was a
post-3.5 subject and this is just a preview of my thoughts. I hope that this
is not the start of a war because it is done with the most constructive
frame of mind (I am a developer, not a lawyer or a troll).
Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit
P.S.: I have an idea: if you received POV-only contributions which tie you
to the current license, what stops you (I would like to say us!) to create a
clean-room pov-clone without these contributions? For example, MegaPOV
simple dropped GIFs when licensing become unbearable.
Bye bye!!!!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <Xns902EBD2AFBF32hookflashhotmailcom@204.213.191.228>,
hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash) wrote:
> I agree that the PovRay license is currently inadequate. In fact, I
> think their whole software development philosophy is
> counter-productive... If they would just OpenSource it like most
> other free projects out there, and allow an open development process
> (similar to Linux), we wouldn't have to all be sitting here waiting
> in the dark for the next release. Of coarse, I shouldn't be
> complaining, considering that PovRay is just plain awesome, but
> sometimes I get frustrated. Just my 2 cents.
Um, what's wrong with MegaPOV? I wouldn't call it "waiting in the dark"
with things like MegaPOV available...and perhaps you just haven't
noticed, but there has been a small explosion of new patches lately.
As for the license: modifying POV-Ray is allowed, it just has to remain
"POV-Ray"...you can't just strip out the renderer and use the parser, or
use code from it in your own projects, the modified version has to
retain the functionality of the official version. This seems to be quite
a reasonable requirement to me...or were you talking about the other
restrictions?
And a much more "open" development model is planned for POV 4.0. For
more information, read the message "POV-Team Status Report - September
1, 2000" by Chris Cason in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Um, what's wrong with MegaPOV? I wouldn't call it "waiting in the dark"
>with things like MegaPOV available...and perhaps you just haven't
>noticed, but there has been a small explosion of new patches lately.
I love MegaPov, but we are being kept waiting in the dark as far as the
actual development schedule is concerned. If someone on this newsgroup
asks when 3.5 will be released, they will get several "When it's ready"
responses, which are pretty much useless.
>As for the license: modifying POV-Ray is allowed, it just has to remain
>"POV-Ray"...you can't just strip out the renderer and use the parser, or
>use code from it in your own projects, the modified version has to
>retain the functionality of the official version. This seems to be quite
>a reasonable requirement to me...or were you talking about the other
>restrictions?
I, personally, have no desire to strip out the renderer and use the parser
or anything of the sort, but I don't really see what harm there would be in
doing so. That's the whole idea behind OpenSource: Sharing of source and
ideas. Peter Popov mentioned that some parts of PovRay were written by
people who can no longer be contacted, and therefore using their code
without restriction (and without their permission) could lead to trouble.
Well, I don't think these people would've contributed their code with that
sort of attitude; and, even if they had, are they really going to take the
time/effort to cause trouble?
>And a much more "open" development model is planned for POV 4.0. For
>more information, read the message "POV-Team Status Report - September
>1, 2000" by Chris Cason in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions.
>
This is a relief, but, at the current rate of PovRay development, I don't
know if I'll live that long;-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Alessandro Coppo wrote:
> easily find one that suits you).... well, with new versions coming out at ~3
> years interval (glacial rate for OpenSource projects), and the current POV
What features are missing that you are waiting for? I for one am against
releasing a program simply so you can say it was released recently; if no
significant contribution has been made, why release another version?
And, if there _are_ features missing, can you easily obtain those features in an
unofficial version? If so, then why are you complaining?
> license I am tempted not to find alternatives (can you spell Ray++ (LGPL) or
> Panorama (GPL) or Raja (GPL)?), but to write them. This is not an empty
> threat. I am currently working at a Java tool which completely (well, in the\
Sorry, but I almost laughed at the word "threat". :) If you do not wish to use
POV-Ray, don't use it. There are plenty of alternatives available, and each one
suits a different group of people. If you are more fully satisfied with a
different piece of software, by all means use that software.
By the way, I just read the povlegal.doc, and I found it perfectly reasonable.
Basically, they say: You can't make money off of POV-Ray. Only the POV-Team
can publish official versions of POV-Ray (but you can publish unofficial ones).
You can't remove features from POV-Ray (making a 'crippled' distribution). It
seems quite reasonable to me... Which, exactly, are the portions you complain
of?
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <Xns902F9BC79418Fhookflashhotmailcom@204.213.191.228>,
hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash) wrote:
> I love MegaPov, but we are being kept waiting in the dark as far as the
> actual development schedule is concerned. If someone on this newsgroup
> asks when 3.5 will be released, they will get several "When it's ready"
> responses, which are pretty much useless.
Well, that *is* the answer...there is no way to predict the final
release date. All of the information has been given: it is not yet beta,
not all of the additions have been completed, but it will have most of
the new features of MegaPOV, the feature list has been frozen, the
features just have to be implemented and tested, and nobody knows when
it will reach beta, let alone final release.
> I, personally, have no desire to strip out the renderer and use the
> parser or anything of the sort, but I don't really see what harm
> there would be in doing so.
Basically: it wouldn't be POV-Ray any more. The harm would be in someone
pulling out the renderer to use in their own program or distributing
crippled versions.
> That's the whole idea behind OpenSource:
> Sharing of source and ideas.
POV-Ray is *not* Open Source. It is copyrighted freeware, and the source
code is available, but that does not make it "Open Source". And there is
nothing wrong with that...the authors wanted tighter control over
*their* project. The idea behind releasing the source was to:
"1) promote the porting of POV-Ray to hardware and operating systems
which the POV-Team cannot support. 2) promote experimentation and
development of new features to the core code which might eventually be
incorporated into the official version. 3) provide insight into the
inner workings of the program for educational purposes."
(from povlegal.doc)
POV-Ray 4.0 may become Open Source, however...as mentioned in the latest
status report.
> Peter Popov mentioned that some parts of PovRay were written by
> people who can no longer be contacted, and therefore using their code
> without restriction (and without their permission) could lead to
> trouble.
> Well, I don't think these people would've contributed their code with
> that sort of attitude; and, even if they had, are they really going
> to take the time/effort to cause trouble?
It doesn't matter whether it will cause trouble or not, their permission
should be obtained first. Similarly, it doesn't matter if you think they
wouldn't mind.
> >And a much more "open" development model is planned for POV 4.0. For
> >more information, read the message "POV-Team Status Report -
> >September 1, 2000" by Chris Cason in
> >povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions.
>
> This is a relief, but, at the current rate of PovRay development, I
> don't know if I'll live that long;-P
I assure you, development *is* being done on it. POV-Ray hasn't been
abandoned.
But also remember that the POV-Team is doing this as a hobby in their
free time...they do not make money off of it, and in many cases spend
money on it. If you want the latest, go get MegaPOV.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3a69c38a@news.povray.org>, "Alessandro Coppo"
<a.c### [at] iolit> wrote:
> Just an example: may I study the source and the algorithms and use
> this knowledge indipendently? Some are documented in books like
> Foley/VanDam etc. so in fact you can only quarrel about the actual
> code (or we have to start talking about prior art instead of
> raytraced art?)
I believe that is well covered in the license. Specifically, "3)
provide insight into the inner workings of the program for educational
purposes."
The fact that the code is copyrighted doesn't mean you can't use the
algorithms...the POV Team doesn't have a patent on raytracing. ;-)
...snip...
What *exactly* is wrong with the current license? Aside from the fact
that it isn't Open Source? What do you want to do with it but can't
because the license prohibits it?
If you find another piece of software that does what you want and has a
license, why not just use that instead? POV can't do everything for
everyone...and it's license can't satisfy everyone either. But in order
to get good feedback or any kind of possible improvement, you need to
say more than "it is inadequate", because it does what it was intended
to do.
> P.S.: I have an idea: if you received POV-only contributions which
> tie you to the current license, what stops you (I would like to say
> us!) to create a clean-room pov-clone without these contributions?
> For example, MegaPOV simple dropped GIFs when licensing become
> unbearable.
Are you talking about rewriting the program? This is already planned,
read the latest status report about the plans for POV 4.0. It is in the
povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions group.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in <chrishuff-
2A3607.20410720012001@news.povray.org>:
>In article <Xns902F9BC79418Fhookflashhotmailcom@204.213.191.228>,
>hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash) wrote:
>
>> I love MegaPov, but we are being kept waiting in the dark as far as the
>> actual development schedule is concerned. If someone on this newsgroup
>> asks when 3.5 will be released, they will get several "When it's ready"
>> responses, which are pretty much useless.
>
>Well, that *is* the answer...there is no way to predict the final
>release date. All of the information has been given: it is not yet beta,
>not all of the additions have been completed, but it will have most of
>the new features of MegaPOV, the feature list has been frozen, the
>features just have to be implemented and tested, and nobody knows when
>it will reach beta, let alone final release.
That's why I dislike the current development model... The only information
we get about the process is whatever the developers decide to tell us. I
would prefer a more open, community-oriented approach (OpenSource,
basically). But maybe that's just my preference.
>> I, personally, have no desire to strip out the renderer and use the
>> parser or anything of the sort, but I don't really see what harm
>> there would be in doing so.
>
>Basically: it wouldn't be POV-Ray any more. The harm would be in someone
>pulling out the renderer to use in their own program or distributing
>crippled versions.
And what harm would there be in that? If someone wants to use the renderer
in their own program or distribute a crippled version, who cares? If it's
not PovRay anymore, they can use a different name and logo.
>It doesn't matter whether it will cause trouble or not, their permission
>should be obtained first. Similarly, it doesn't matter if you think they
>wouldn't mind.
How can we obtain their permission when we can't contact them?
>I assure you, development *is* being done on it. POV-Ray hasn't been
>abandoned.
>But also remember that the POV-Team is doing this as a hobby in their
>free time...they do not make money off of it, and in many cases spend
>money on it. If you want the latest, go get MegaPOV.
I appreciate the work the PovTeam is doing, but I think it would be easier
on them *and* the community if we had a more open development model. Of
coarse, I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice before... j/k;-)
Hookflash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And what harm would there be in that? If someone wants to use the
renderer
> in their own program or distribute a crippled version, who cares? If it's
> not PovRay anymore, they can use a different name and logo.
LOL, yeah I'll just take the object source code that's supplied with 3D
Studio MAX Commercial, and I'll call it something different and change it
slightly, and I'll sell it, there's no harm in that, after all, it won't be
the 3D Studio MAX object source anymore.
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hookflash wrote:
>
> >Well, that *is* the answer...there is no way to predict the final
> >release date. All of the information has been given: it is not yet beta,
> >not all of the additions have been completed, but it will have most of
> >the new features of MegaPOV, the feature list has been frozen, the
> >features just have to be implemented and tested, and nobody knows when
> >it will reach beta, let alone final release.
>
> That's why I dislike the current development model... The only information
> we get about the process is whatever the developers decide to tell us. I
> would prefer a more open, community-oriented approach (OpenSource,
> basically).
OpenSource does not mean that the development stages are done in the
open. It means that once released, the code is available to everyone to
tinker with and reuse.
> >> I, personally, have no desire to strip out the renderer and use the
> >> parser or anything of the sort, but I don't really see what harm
> >> there would be in doing so.
> >
> >Basically: it wouldn't be POV-Ray any more. The harm would be in someone
> >pulling out the renderer to use in their own program or distributing
> >crippled versions.
>
> And what harm would there be in that?
You are using someone's work without their permission.
> If someone wants to use the renderer
> in their own program or distribute a crippled version, who cares?
The people who wrote the renderer seem to care enough to ask you in
POVLEGAL.DOC not to do it.
> If it's
> not PovRay anymore, they can use a different name and logo.
>
> >It doesn't matter whether it will cause trouble or not, their permission
> >should be obtained first. Similarly, it doesn't matter if you think they
> >wouldn't mind.
>
> How can we obtain their permission when we can't contact them?
>
Hence the reason why you can't reuse their code.
> >I assure you, development *is* being done on it. POV-Ray hasn't been
> >abandoned.
> >But also remember that the POV-Team is doing this as a hobby in their
> >free time...they do not make money off of it, and in many cases spend
> >money on it. If you want the latest, go get MegaPOV.
>
> I appreciate the work the PovTeam is doing, but I think it would be easier
> on them *and* the community if we had a more open development model. Of
> coarse, I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice before... j/k;-)
What do you mean by "a more open development model" exactly?
--
Francois Labreque | In the future, performance will be measured
flabreque | by the size of your pipe.
@ | - Dogbert, on networking
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20 Jan 2001 23:23:03 -0500 Hookflash wrote:
>That's why I dislike the current development model... The only information
>we get about the process is whatever the developers decide to tell us. I
>would prefer a more open, community-oriented approach (OpenSource,
>basically). But maybe that's just my preference.
We prefer not to get into discussions on the progress of an upcoming
release. It's time *not* spent on development. Sorry if this is not to
everyone's liking but there are a lot of real world issues that warrant
more concern than what day POV-Ray will be released. Guarantee one
thing, though - you'll hear it first on this news server <s>.
--
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hookflash wrote:
> That's why I dislike the current development model... The only information
> we get about the process is whatever the developers decide to tell us. I
> would prefer a more open, community-oriented approach (OpenSource,
> basically). But maybe that's just my preference.
As a user, I would not like POV-Ray to become as clumsy as most
open source projects, where you have things like :
latest build : 3.1.1.5b
latest stable build : 3.0.1a
Users of POV-Ray needs compatibility of scenes, and needs to count
on stable, reliable, coherent versions of their software. I would
not like to have to choose between "RedHat POV-Ray", "POV-Ray Suse",
"Corel POV", etc.. Before MegaPOV, there were several patches
availiable, and it was sometimes a headache for advanced users,
to choose between availiable features frome one or another.
The current situation, with an official, officially supported,
version (3.1g), and a semi-official, full of new features version
(MP), is fine, from a user point of view.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20 Jan 2001 18:20:25 -0500, hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash)
wrote:
>Peter Popov mentioned that some parts of PovRay were written by
>people who can no longer be contacted, and therefore using their code
>without restriction (and without their permission) could lead to trouble.
I don't recall mentioning trouble. And I don't think anyone would
start causing trouble. There are moral issues involved, though.
>Well, I don't think these people would've contributed their code with that
>sort of attitude; and, even if they had, are they really going to take the
>time/effort to cause trouble?
I doubt they would but still it doesn't give anyone full rights over
these contributors' code.
>>And a much more "open" development model is planned for POV 4.0. For
>>more information, read the message "POV-Team Status Report - September
>>1, 2000" by Chris Cason in povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions.
>This is a relief, but, at the current rate of PovRay development, I don't
>know if I'll live that long;-P
The POV Team members work on POV in whatever free time they can steal
from making a living and having a real life. They are doing it for
free. How would you feel if you were in their position and people keep
asking why development is slow? Think about it.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
All right, let's stop it here as it is basically boiling down to an "Open
Source is good / Open Source is bad" flame war. As I wrote before, I like
coding and not quarreling.
Now I know for sure that I have to embark in a loooong project... I hope to
post news (and code) in a couple of months ;-)
Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit
P.S.: Open Source is different from Richard Stallman's Free Software: if you
don't think so, goto http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ . Other interesting
references are http://www.opensource.org/ and http://www.opencontent.org/
for an example that all this does not apply only to code.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hookflash wrote:
>
> That's why I dislike the current development model... The only information
> we get about the process is whatever the developers decide to tell us. I
> would prefer a more open, community-oriented approach (OpenSource,
> basically). But maybe that's just my preference.
Well, you can always modify the povray source to make your own patch as
long as you comply with the licence. megapov *is* a much more open
approach containing the patches from a lot of different people. Anyway
there are a lot of problems with megapov, because most patches were
developed for some special purpose and for example are not easy to use,
not well optimized or don't work well together with other patches.
As i understand it Povray 3.5 is not only about adding new features to
Povray but also about keeping consistence concerning the Povray language,
the documentation and of course the source code. I much appreciate that
effort.
>
> And what harm would there be in that? If someone wants to use the renderer
> in their own program or distribute a crippled version, who cares? If it's
> not PovRay anymore, they can use a different name and logo.
I don't agree with that, mainly because i would not like that either if it
was my programming work.
>
> How can we obtain their permission when we can't contact them?
>
POVLEGAL says how you can contact the POV-Team if you have questions
concerning the licence. Furthermore i suppose you can also contact the
TAG about that.
>
> I appreciate the work the PovTeam is doing, but I think it would be easier
> on them *and* the community if we had a more open development model. Of
> coarse, I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice before... j/k;-)
>
According to the POV-Team Status Report there is going to be some change
in that for version 4. You can read the Status Report in
povray.announce.frequently-asked-questions
Christoph
--
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde>
IsoWood include, radiosity tutorial, TransSkin and other
things on: http://www.schunter.etc.tu-bs.de/~chris/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> >> I love MegaPov, but we are being kept waiting in the dark as far as the
> >> actual development schedule is concerned. If someone on this newsgroup
> >> asks when 3.5 will be released, they will get several "When it's ready"
> >> responses, which are pretty much useless.
> >
> >Well, that *is* the answer...there is no way to predict the final
> >release date. All of the information has been given: it is not yet beta,
> >not all of the additions have been completed, but it will have most of
> >the new features of MegaPOV, the feature list has been frozen, the
> >features just have to be implemented and tested, and nobody knows when
> >it will reach beta, let alone final release.
>
> That's why I dislike the current development model... The only information
> we get about the process is whatever the developers decide to tell us. I
> would prefer a more open, community-oriented approach (OpenSource,
> basically). But maybe that's just my preference.
I don't want to propagate long debates like this, bit let me give you some
information from a historical perspective.
The reason I proposed starting a POV-Ray team and using the source for DKBTrace
as a base was exactly because I couldn't keep up with the development on my
own. There were lots of people who wanted to add new features and extend the
system but couldn't because it was controlled by one individual. I was just
starting my Master's degree and I felt I wouldn't have time to put into adding
features into a free program and rather than let it die, I handed it over to a
group of developers to allow them to make their enhancements. It's ironic that
the same situation has occurred in POV-Ray.
If there's anything I learned from my DKBTrace and POV-Ray experience, it's
that integrating all the code. testing it, and putting together a release is as
difficult a job as just writing the code in the first place. Lots of gotchas
pop in and delay release. You also get a lot of people breathing down your
neck eager for the next release. Any time we jumped the gun and released a
package before we were ready, it backfired on us - something critical was
wrong, a fixed version had to be released in a hurry, and users are confused
about what version is right and what version is wrong. It gave people doubts
about the quality of the program and caused embarrassment on behalf of the
developers. I'm unconvinced that a completely open-sourced approach would
handle these issues well.
Also remember that even though the source is freely available and the program
is free to download and use, it still has a copyright and the POV-Ray team
still owns the intellectual material. At one time, we seriously considered
allowing various companies to license POV for a charge (keeping it free for
other uses), but the whole idea collapsed because we couldn't agree on how the
profits were to be split. It also caused a riff in the POV-Ray team because it
got into a "my contribution is worth more than your contribution" war. I can't
image the POV-Ray team tying that again.
I sympathize with the people who feel that the POV-Ray team holds too tightly
onto the reigns of power on POV-Ray. Remember, though, that they are trying to
set a certain standard on the quality of the package (including docs, examples,
etc) and they are ultimately responsible if things aren't right. It's easy to
criticize but it's hard to do. Give them some slack and let them do the work.
As for announcing release dates, there's no point. Internally, they will
probably have a date they are shooting for. If they miss that date, though,
they don't want flack from the user community asking "where is it?" Again
we've been through that before and it's not fun trying to explain slips in
schedules to the user community. We got into the "we'll announce it once it's
released and no sooner" to try to free our time to do the work rather than
answer questions on why we didn't make our predicted release date.
Enough said.
David Buck
dav### [at] simberoncom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:04:34 +0200, Peter Popov wrote:
>On 20 Jan 2001 18:20:25 -0500, hoo### [at] hotmailcom (Hookflash)
>>Well, I don't think these people would've contributed their code with that
>>sort of attitude; and, even if they had, are they really going to take the
>>time/effort to cause trouble?
>
>I doubt they would but still it doesn't give anyone full rights over
>these contributors' code.
In fact, some contributors did specify that their code could only be used
for POV-Ray, perhaps due to constraints on their contributions due to their
employers or other parties. By allowing reuse of that code, we could be
getting the original contributor in legal trouble with someone who really
does care.
By contrast, some code in POV-Ray really is free: the crackle code in
3.1 specifies in the comments that it's public domain (though you should
check that yourself rather than take my word on it, because I'm just saying
that from memory.)
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:41:56 -0500 David Buck wrote:
>If there's anything I learned from my DKBTrace and POV-Ray experience, it's
>that integrating all the code. testing it, and putting together a release is as
>difficult a job as just writing the code in the first place. Lots of gotchas
>pop in and delay release.
Nothing has changed in that regard, David <s>. The guys are hard at
work, writing and debugging, as we speak... err, type.
>At one time, we seriously considered
>allowing various companies to license POV for a charge (keeping it free for
>other uses), but the whole idea collapsed because we couldn't agree on how the
>profits were to be split. It also caused a riff in the POV-Ray team because it
>got into a "my contribution is worth more than your contribution" war. I can't
>image the POV-Ray team tying that again.
We like keeping it simple. We strive for cohesion within the POV-Team
and we have a really good, dedicated group of individuals right now.
People who can work well together can accomplish a lot. We also receive
invaluable help from the TAG (Technical Assistance Group), who provide a
much needed first line of support for these news groups.
>As for announcing release dates, there's no point. Internally, they will
>probably have a date they are shooting for. If they miss that date, though,
>they don't want flack from the user community asking "where is it?" Again
>we've been through that before and it's not fun trying to explain slips in
>schedules to the user community. We got into the "we'll announce it once it's
>released and no sooner" to try to free our time to do the work rather than
>answer questions on why we didn't make our predicted release date.
>
>Enough said.
...and well said, David. Thank you for your perspective.
--
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Lance Birch" <-> wrote in <3a6a67b9@news.povray.org>:
>> And what harm would there be in that? If someone wants to use the
>renderer
>> in their own program or distribute a crippled version, who cares? If
>> it's not PovRay anymore, they can use a different name and logo.
>
>LOL, yeah I'll just take the object source code that's supplied with 3D
>Studio MAX Commercial, and I'll call it something different and change
>it slightly, and I'll sell it, there's no harm in that, after all, it
>won't be the 3D Studio MAX object source anymore.
>
>--
>Lance.
>
>http://come.to/the.zone
>
>
No, you won't do that, because 3DS Max is a commercial product. You would
be stealing profits, and that would be harmful to the developer's and their
business. PovRay, on the other hand, is freeware, so there are no profits
to steal.
Hookflash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>What do you mean by "a more open development model" exactly?
>
A development model where the community is involved in the actual
development of the program (i.e., similar to MegaPov, via patches and such)
and have access to some sort of development schedule. Why does there have
to be a dedicated group of select developers? Couldn't the entire
community (well, anyone who has the desire) be the "PovTeam"?
Hookflash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>I don't recall mentioning trouble. And I don't think anyone would
>start causing trouble. There are moral issues involved, though.
Sorry, misinterpretation on my part.
>The POV Team members work on POV in whatever free time they can steal
>from making a living and having a real life. They are doing it for
>free. How would you feel if you were in their position and people keep
>asking why development is slow? Think about it.
>
Well, you have to admit, development *is* slow... I'm not trying to be
rude, I'm just stating a fact. Development would be *much* faster if Pov's
license were like Linux's. Yeah, we'd have a bunch of different versions
of Pov, and some of them would be commercial, but I don't see that as such
a bad thing. I love the direction Linux is taking. On the other hand, I
do love PovRay, and I appreciate the work the developers are doing; I just
want what's best for PovRay.
Hookflash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No, you won't do that, because 3DS Max is a commercial product. You would
> be stealing profits, and that would be harmful to the developer's and
their
> business. PovRay, on the other hand, is freeware, so there are no profits
> to steal.
>
> Hookflash
If you've read the documentation you'd realise that POV-Ray *does* have a
commercial value and that what you just said isn't true.
There are funds to steal, and there is intellectual property to steal.
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21 Jan 2001 19:28:27 -0500, Hookflash wrote:
>Well, you have to admit, development *is* slow... I'm not trying to be
>rude, I'm just stating a fact. Development would be *much* faster if Pov's
>license were like Linux's. Yeah, we'd have a bunch of different versions
Yeah. You know Linux. That OS that just won Salon's vaporware of the
year award for kernel 2.4.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why does there have
> to be a dedicated group of select developers? Couldn't the entire
> community (well, anyone who has the desire) be the "PovTeam"?
In a sense they are through Megapov. If your patch is good and
people in general find it useful then it can make it into the
official version, what's wrong with that?
--
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>If you've read the documentation you'd realise that POV-Ray *does* have
>a commercial value and that what you just said isn't true.
>
>There are funds to steal, and there is intellectual property to steal.
>
>--
>Lance.
>
>http://come.to/the.zone
>
I said that PovRay was freeware, whereas 3DS Max is a commercial *product*.
Whether or not PovRay has "commercial value" is irrelevant to our
discussion, since PovRay is not being sold as a commercial product. Also,
the intellectual property cannot be stolen since it's freely available for
download.
Hookflash
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've posted my picture at the following address:
http://www.simberon.com/povray/access.bmp
Enjoy.
David Buck
dav### [at] simberoncom
"Bob H." wrote:
> "David Buck" <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote in message
> news:3A6### [at] simberoncom...
> > seldom worked hard to create a "really cool" image. The only one I did that
> > was involved was the rendering of a Nortel switch with a computer, TV, and
> > telephone surrounding them. I don't have the original sources, but I could
> > probably scan the image and post it so you can see it.
>
> I for one would thoroughly love to see a work done by you, I can't say I ever
> have before.
>
> Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hookflash wrote:
>
> >If you've read the documentation you'd realise that POV-Ray *does* have
> >a commercial value and that what you just said isn't true.
> >
> >There are funds to steal, and there is intellectual property to steal.
>
> I said that PovRay was freeware, whereas 3DS Max is a commercial *product*.
> Whether or not PovRay has "commercial value" is irrelevant to our
> discussion, since PovRay is not being sold as a commercial product. Also,
> the intellectual property cannot be stolen since it's freely available for
> download.
Intellectual property is a joke, IMNSHO. However, in the sense that IP
can be "stolen" at all, it can be stolen from the various contributors
to POV-Ray. Whether or not POV-Ray is being sold for money is completely
irrelevant to the fact that it enjoys the same protection under the law
as 3DS Max or any other piece of commercial software.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I said that PovRay was freeware, whereas 3DS Max is a commercial
*product*.
> Whether or not PovRay has "commercial value" is irrelevant to our
> discussion, since PovRay is not being sold as a commercial product. Also,
POV-Ray, as outlined in the documentation, has a commercial retail price,
not just commercial value.
> the intellectual property cannot be stolen since it's freely available for
> download.
The intellectual property can be considered stolen if someone resells it, as
outlined in the documentation.
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hookflash wrote:
> I said that PovRay was freeware, whereas 3DS Max is a commercial *product*.
> Whether or not PovRay has "commercial value" is irrelevant to our
> discussion, since PovRay is not being sold as a commercial product. Also,
> the intellectual property cannot be stolen since it's freely available for
> download.
You understood nothing about intellectual property, then.
What could be stolen is indeed the free-ness of POV-Ray. If someone
took parts of POV-Ray to include in a commercial product (as could
happen with your views), it would be theft, making money on the
back of people who whished to share something for free.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well said.
--
Lance.
http://come.to/the.zone
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"David Buck" <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote in message
news:3A6BB9B4.8B98C1C4@simberon.com...
> I've posted my picture at the following address:
>
> http://www.simberon.com/povray/access.bmp
>
> Enjoy.
Did, thanks. I thought I was going to be disappointed and see a photo of you
yourself. har har
Bob H.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: David Burnett
Subject: Re: Hi from DKBTrace author
Date: 23 Jan 2001 15:03:07
Message: <980279872@bigfoot.com>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker) wrote...
>On 21 Jan 2001 19:28:27 -0500, Hookflash wrote:
>
>Yeah. You know Linux. That OS that just won Salon's vaporware of the
>year award for kernel 2.4.
Despite the fact that people have been runnig it for months before the
award.
--
Posted By NewsBe 1.6.3 Alpha
http://www.vargol.freeserve.co.uk/newsbe/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck wrote:
> I've posted my picture at the following address:
>
> http://www.simberon.com/povray/access.bmp
Cool! Good compositioning. Is that a word?
I woulda posted a PNG btw.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
> David Buck wrote:
>
> > I've posted my picture at the following address:
> >
> > http://www.simberon.com/povray/access.bmp
>
> Cool! Good compositioning. Is that a word?
>
> I woulda posted a PNG btw.
I didn't have much time to do the conversions. If you wish, you can
convert it an post it on the images news group. It may be easier for
people to see.
I had some help with the composition from an animator friend of mine.
He's the one who designed the images for my upcoming ElastoLab program
and modeled the frog on Simberon's home page http://www.simberon.com.
He has an eye for composition. I'll forward your comments to him. I'm
sure he'd appreciate the compliment.
David Buck
dav### [at] simberoncom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:18:35 -0500 David Buck wrote:
>I didn't have much time to do the conversions. If you wish, you can
>convert it an post it on the images news group. It may be easier for
>people to see.
Hello, David. I've converted "Access.bmp" to JPEG (PNG was still over
400k) and posted it in the p.b.i. group for others to enjoy.
--
Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Burnett wrote:
>
> ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker) wrote...
> >On 21 Jan 2001 19:28:27 -0500, Hookflash wrote:
> >
> >Yeah. You know Linux. That OS that just won Salon's vaporware of the
> >year award for kernel 2.4.
>
> Despite the fact that people have been runnig it for months before the
> award.
Erm... It came out (officially) in January!
--
Francois Labreque | In the future, performance will be measured
flabreque | by the size of your pipe.
@ | - Dogbert, on networking
videotron.ca
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Buck wrote:
> I didn't have much time to do the conversions. If you wish, you can
> convert it an post it on the images news group. It may be easier for
> people to see.
Someone beat me too it ;)
> I had some help with the composition from an animator friend of mine.
> He's the one who designed the images for my upcoming ElastoLab program
> and modeled the frog on Simberon's home page http://www.simberon.com.
> He has an eye for composition. I'll forward your comments to him. I'm
> sure he'd appreciate the compliment.
Kewl. Positioning and juxtapositioning pulls every piece together.
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricynet> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello, I haven't had the chance to read all the replies your note has
generated, but there is one reason I'm interested in reaching *you*.� I'm
running a collection of povray (including� explicitly, povray-predecessor!)
art for sale on CD-ROM to benefit the development activities of the
POV-Team.� Chris Cason gave approval for the project.� (Things are a bit
slow right now as we work on an automated upload page, etc...)
But in any case I would be very interested in your donating to this project
any old DBK images, or even providing any historical ramblings on how you
had to walk uphill both ways just to get to a computer that only had lower
case "l"'s and O's, etc. :)��� Please see a page on this project at:
http://10best.raytrace.com/10best.html
I'm Greg M. Johnson.� please reply to�� p t e r a n d o n <at> y a h o o
<dot> c o m.
David Buck wrote:
> Hi all.� I just found this newsgroup recently and I'm amazed at all the
> traffic on it.� It seems that POV-Ray has come a long way form it's
> humble beginnings back in '85 or so.� I'm the author of DKBTrace which,
> you may know, is the predecessor of POV-Ray.� I offered the DKBTrace
> source to the POV-Ray team as a base system and I served on the POV-Ray
> team for about two years.
>
> What exciting things are happening these days in the POV-Ray world?� I'm
> seeing some amazing things posted on the net.
>
> David Buck
> dav### [at] simberoncom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks.
David Buck
dav### [at] simberoncom
Alan Kong wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:18:35 -0500 David Buck wrote:
>
> >I didn't have much time to do the conversions. If you wish, you can
> >convert it an post it on the images news group. It may be easier for
> >people to see.
>
> Hello, David. I've converted "Access.bmp" to JPEG (PNG was still over
> 400k) and posted it in the p.b.i. group for others to enjoy.
>
> --
> Alan - ako### [at] povrayorg - a k o n g <at> p o v r a y <dot> o r g
> http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21 Jan 2001 21:10:31 -0500, ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker)
wrote:
>Yeah. You know Linux. That OS that just won Salon's vaporware of the
>year award for kernel 2.4.
Why? Any more info on this? There is now Slack 7.1 (k2.4) on another
partition on this machine mainly because a) we (my brother and I) want
to be able to watch a DVD without having to restart ten times and b)
my brother wants to learn iptables and the other goodies of 2.4 . Then
he might install it on our blind firewall box.
So, what's wrong with 2.4?
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:10:58 +0200, Peter Popov wrote:
>On 21 Jan 2001 21:10:31 -0500, ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>Yeah. You know Linux. That OS that just won Salon's vaporware of the
>>year award for kernel 2.4.
[...]
>So, what's wrong with 2.4?
Whoops, seems I misremembered it a bit. It only took fourth place, and
it was Wired who ran the survey rather than Salon. Here's a URL:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,40484,00.html
Anyway, the point is, the POV development model is a lot like the Linux
development model already: you have a bunch of people throwing a bunch of
stuff into unofficial distributions (cf. the various pre and ac releases
of Linux) and a few people who actually control the official code and
make sure it's up to standards (cf. Linus) There's nothing wrong with this,
of course. Until a few days ago, this machine was running 2.2.18pre17
simply because it did what I needed, and most of my machines have MegaPOV
installed for the same reason.
When real life intervenes, as it does all too often, schedules slip. That's
why 3.5 is long overdue, and why Linux 2.4 was long overdue. The GPL or
lack thereof is a different thing entirely, but the person I was replying
to didn't seem to understand that.
--
Ron Parker http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions. Mine. Not anyone else's.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <slr### [at] fwicom>, ron### [at] povrayorg
wrote:
> Whoops, seems I misremembered it a bit. It only took fourth place, and
> it was Wired who ran the survey rather than Salon. Here's a URL:
>
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,40484,00.html
And they gave Mac OS X first place...when there has been a public beta
available for a while and a recently announced shipping date. (well, the
shipping date was probably announced after this was written, but the
beta has been around since October.)
It is certainly *very* late, but I wouldn't call it vaporware when lots
of people besides the developers are running it...
> When real life intervenes, as it does all too often, schedules slip.
> That's why 3.5 is long overdue, and why Linux 2.4 was long overdue.
> The GPL or lack thereof is a different thing entirely, but the person
> I was replying to didn't seem to understand that.
What I can't understand is the problem with MegaPOV or the other
unofficial versions...or why he doesn't like the idea that POV source
code isn't allowed to be used in anything but POV, or that distributing
crippled versions isn't allowed.
And the insistence on complaining in spite of a public announcement that
the POV Team is considering a different, possibly Open Source license is
a bit strange.
--
Christopher James Huff
Personal: chr### [at] maccom, http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg, http://tag.povray.org/
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in <chrishuff-I was replying to didn't
seem to understand that.
>What I can't understand is the problem with MegaPOV or the other
>unofficial versions...or why he doesn't like the idea that POV source
>code isn't allowed to be used in anything but POV, or that distributing
>crippled versions isn't allowed.
>And the insistence on complaining in spite of a public announcement that
>the POV Team is considering a different, possibly Open Source license is
>a bit strange.
>
Hey, I'm not complaining. I've stated several times that I love PovRay and
appreciate the work that the PovTeam is doing. Perhaps I was just airing
my opinions too harshly (I have a tendency to do that... People often tell
me I'm opninionated;-). Anyways, my love for PovRay far outweighs my
dislike for it's license, which is why I've decided to stop mentioning it.
Also, after a reread of the license and some consideration of the replies
to my original message, I suppose the license isn't that bad.
"Strangely", Hookflash
<><
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
