> 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

"Xplo Eristotle" <xpl### [at] infomagicnet> a écrit dans le message de news:
3db53b04@news.povray.org...

> 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.

To be really fair, everyone who sells "products of the intellect" kind of
goods may know this sort of little moral tugging because there's always
something in what you sell that was given to you by someone else (ideas,
bits of code etc.). I guess a little hypocrisy is unavoidable and is usually
forgivable. The questions are, how it balances out eventually (how much
value did you add to what you received) or, well, how much you want/need the
money!

G.

--

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

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> 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 ?

Well, how would you like it if people made modified versions of your
images and distributed them beyond your control? I know that images and
include files are not the same thing, but I feel the same way about the
include files I make.

> 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.

So if POV-Ray was only free for non-commercial usage, there would be
suddenly no user-base at all? I'm not sure about the correctness of this
assumption.

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

No, I still don't see the problem.

I have contributed lots of things to this community that can be used as
anyone pleases. It's only my most complete and finished include files
that go under the terms of use in question. I could never dream about
doing the same for simple advise or for the casual helpful 50 lines of
code here and there.

It wouldn't bother me if all the include files that people make were
only free for non-commercial purposes.

> 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.

Such a sign makes sense if there are many other shops that offer free
goods. It's not at all obvious that my include files are not free for
commercial usage, if I don't explicitly write it.

> you hurt yourself because of the lack of exposure you
> need as someone with real 3D skills.

Somehow I doubt that greater exposure of my include files would make
anyone hire me, send me free things, or anything like that.

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

Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> 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.

So theft of information is ok, eh? Well then, there's one obvious way
for me to avoid that happening, and that is not to publish or release
the information in the first place. That would also save me all the work
of writing documentation and making everything neat, and there probably
wouldn't be anyone complaining either. It really is a tempting thing to
consider for my future projects...

At least, that's the kind of reasoning that arguments like yours result
in.

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:
3db57a70@news.povray.org...

> Well, how would you like it if people made modified versions of your
> images and distributed them beyond your control?

(Unless there would be some actual damage done to my reputation, it wouldn't
be such a problem. I just take care to not put commercially viable (i.e.
printable) images on-line. The one half-plagiary problem I got was settled
quite peacefully. There was also the case where someone re-rendered Jaime's
"Old Door" image with some minor changes, posted it and took way too much
credit for it. And there's an IRTC picture which is a unashamed copy of a
better pic (non-credited) and still won an award. But I guess we can live
with that.)

The trouble with POV-Ray include files is that, until now, the untold
assumption was that they were not supposed to have a non-symbolic commercial
value, just like POV-Ray (which has a symbolic retail value of 30$).
"Untold" because all the people who had created great include files before
you didn't bother, AFAIK. So it's like waking up and finding that something
that everyone was taking was granted was gone, and it explains why a few
people expressed their sadness. OK, so POV-Ray script files can be sold and
traded now, so please let the lawyers in, and the I Am Not A Lawyer But
threads, and endless EULA discussions like this one... (just overdoing it a
little bit, just for the fun of it).

> So if POV-Ray was only free for non-commercial usage, there would be
> suddenly no user-base at all? I'm not sure about the correctness of this
> assumption.

Because when things go commercial, the stakes suddenlenly get higher,
vendors get greedy and pushy, users get demanding and angry etc. It can
settle eventually but a lot is gone. Every time I frequent other 3D forums
concerning commercial software, I'm always surprised at the amount of
bitterness and resentement there. There are always people bitching at each
other, reciprocal accusations of piracy, of who stole what from whom, when
they don't rat each other out. Want an example : lately, some disgruntled
vendors of Poser models started sending anonymous hate mail to freebie
providers, accusing them of unfair competition. Here's a sample (I bleeped
the naughty words) that was posted recently in a Poser forum :

"Hows about you [bleep] right off out of the community. We don't need you or
your free [bleep] . The Renderosity store is there to give people the stuff
they need for Poser not [bleep]  who try to kill vendors by giving [bleep]
away."

See what we're missing ? I do believe that the POV-Ray community became what
it is now because of the absence of commercial competition between its
members. It's a nice place. We have this 100% free resource, we make nice
images and if someone sells a pic for 10$ once in a blue moon everybody's
happy and nobody's hurt. Why change that ?

> Somehow I doubt that greater exposure of my include files would make
> anyone hire me, send me free things, or anything like that.

POV-Ray is not a get-rich-quick scheme. No real money in that, period. Those
here who will make a career in 3D will have it once they'll get to use the
pro tools, after they will have been introduced to art/3D/programming
through POV-Ray. Think of Marco Fajardo, once a POV-Ray patcher, now the
Arnold/Messaiah guru. Or HE Day, who's busy learning Max. Or Debra Ross,
who's started with POV-Ray and is now making models for Curious Labs.
If you plan this sort of career, a nice resume showing the sort of thing you
did with POV-Ray, how successful you were doing them, and what popularity
you got will certainly help you landing jobs. Exposure of your work is
obviously instrumental in that. You need your name to come up in Google
searches to prove it and for that you need a maximum of people using your
stuff and happy with it, and if they post it without your consent, it's
still advertising for you.
But of course it really depends on what you plan to do with your life, lol.


G.


--

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

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> POV-Ray is not a get-rich-quick scheme.

POV-Ray is not an ANYTHING-quick scheme, LOL...;)

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
mirror: http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/z/9/z993126

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Would this work for making a still shot of a snowy scene where
it has been snowing for some time from various directions. Would
the snow accumulate over time? Stick to surfaces?


_____________
Kari Kivisalo

Post a reply to this message

Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> Would this work for making a still shot of a snowy
> scene where it has been snowing for some time from
> various directions.

No, that would require too many particles, and the system is not at all
optimized for this task.

> Would the snow accumulate over time? Stick to surfaces?

No and no. Sorry. :/

But thinking about it, I don't think that any particle system would be
well suited for a task like this. Assuming that we are talking about at
least semi-realistic snow spread over a somewhat large area...

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:
> 
> 
> Somehow I doubt that greater exposure of my include files would make
> anyone hire me, send me free things, or anything like that.
> 
> Rune

As Gilles said: don't underestimate the power of Google! ;)

If someone would be looking for information/assistance on a
subject like particle systems Google could be a place to start
and it might be benificial to be somewhere at the top of the
list there.

I actually think the odds for earning some cash that way are
better then through direct sales - in the long run that is.

Remco

Post a reply to this message

Remco de Korte wrote:
> As Gilles said: don't underestimate the power of Google! ;)
>
> If someone would be looking for information/assistance on a
> subject like particle systems Google could be a place to start
> and it might be beneficial to be somewhere at the top of the
> list there.

Yeah, right now a search for "particle system" only returns my site as
nr. 19.

Just a shame that I cannot give any information or assistance with
particle systems, because the only one I've made is pretty simplistic
and is not at all based on a thorough background knowledge on the
subject.

> I actually think the odds for earning some cash that way are
> better then through direct sales - in the long run that is.

Well, I fail to see how.

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 actually think the odds for earning some cash that way are
> > better then through direct sales - in the long run that is.
> 
> Well, I fail to see how.
> 
> Rune
> --

I can understand that. I sympathize with the fact that you're
trying to get something back for things you've been providing.
In a freeware oriented community that is *difficult* to say the
least.

You claim you have little knowledge about particle systems, but
what are you offering then and why do you expect people to pay
for that (instead of other things you might have to offer *)? 

I'm not saying anything about the value of your system (the
inherent value, which is probably different from the value in
the freeware context) or of your skills. But one good project
would probably earn you more then you would ever get from
selling licenses.

It's been known to happen (to me for instance) but you have to
get some exposure. Preferrably outside the POV-community,
because they're all paupers ;)

Whichever way you go I still think you have the right to choose
for yourself.

Cheers!

Remco


*) uh-oh, I'm not suggesting you should start selling your body
or organs or something ;)

Post a reply to this message

In article <3db5d725@news.povray.org>, run### [at] mobilixnetdk 
says...
> Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> > Would this work for making a still shot of a snowy
> > scene where it has been snowing for some time from
> > various directions.
> 
> No, that would require too many particles, and the system is not at all
> optimized for this task.
> 
> > Would the snow accumulate over time? Stick to surfaces?
> 
> No and no. Sorry. :/
> 
> But thinking about it, I don't think that any particle system would be
> well suited for a task like this. Assuming that we are talking about at
> least semi-realistic snow spread over a somewhat large area...
Hmm.. I don't know, if your surface was a blob or something like one then 
each particle that died as it impacted could be added to the structure of 
the blob with some threshold that caused multiple objects to be replaced 
by a single larger object or the like. Of course from what I read 
someplace else about blobs, this may not work quite right...

> 
> 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> wrote in news:3db57a70
@news.povray.org:

> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> you hurt yourself because of the lack of exposure you
>> need as someone with real 3D skills.
> 
> Somehow I doubt that greater exposure of my include files would make
> anyone hire me, send me free things, or anything like that.
> 
> Rune

I don't.

I have bought and upgraded Moray several times.  I have bought Midnite 
Modellor.  I own a few keyrings, all the IRTC CD-ROMS, Gilles Trans Zebra  
poster is on my to purchase list.  That is just the POV community way.  
Over the years I have spent thousands buying shareware and making 
donations to open source software.  Your particle system would be high on 
my list for a donation if the terms of use were in the original stone 
soup spirit that started POV-Ray off.  What I mean by that is:

- GPL the include(at sourceforge would be nice).  
- Set up a wishlist at Amazon 
- Or a paypal button.

Take a look at the gifts that the Maintainer of AWstats(a wonderful 
package BTW) has received recently:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/registry/3F19UHYYQRBPA/102-1233161-
5494538?registry.reveal-purchases=true

My purchase from earlier this month has already scrolled off the list. 
Now I am not saying that you will have the same success, but I would 
wager that you would receive more compensation this way, because the  
people in this community do give back.

As it stands now I do not use your includes and IMP can not either.  
Please don't take this as an attack.  It is a plea to free the includes 
and trust the community to take care of it's own.

Tom

Post a reply to this message

Rune wrote:
> 
> So theft of information is ok, eh?

Since information which is made available to others can't be owned, it 
can't be stolen. Your question is meaningless.

> Well then, there's one obvious way
> for me to avoid that happening, and that is not to publish or release
> the information in the first place. That would also save me all the work
> of writing documentation and making everything neat, and there probably
> wouldn't be anyone complaining either. It really is a tempting thing to
> consider for my future projects...

That's exactly right. The only way you can exercise any control over 
your information is to keep it to yourself and never release it.

Perhaps you should consider carefully what you would prefer: that 
everybody have what you create, or that nobody have what you create. All 
other choices are ultimately illusory.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

I guess for cases like "snow-piling", it would be
best to build specifically designed systems for
just this task, by cropping some useful algorithms
from the existing system and creating a new,
less versatile system.
In this case, I'd say:
-Drop particles onto surfaces with the typical
particle routine, just let them drop until they
sort of stay where they are.
-As soon as they've stopped, add them to a
file which is loaded to be part of the object that
particles are to bounce off from

This might require some tweaking to the systems
core routine, cause new objects will be popping
up all over the place...

Might make an interesting project though.

Well, just my 2 cents worth,
Tim


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

> > Kari Kivisalo wrote:
> > > Would this work for making a still shot of a snowy
> > > scene where it has been snowing for some time from
> > > various directions.
> >
> > No, that would require too many particles, and the system is not at all
> > optimized for this task.
> >
> > > Would the snow accumulate over time? Stick to surfaces?
> >
> > No and no. Sorry. :/
> >
> > But thinking about it, I don't think that any particle system would be
> > well suited for a task like this. Assuming that we are talking about at
> > least semi-realistic snow spread over a somewhat large area...
> Hmm.. I don't know, if your surface was a blob or something like one then
> each particle that died as it impacted could be added to the structure of
> the blob with some threshold that caused multiple objects to be replaced
> by a single larger object or the like. Of course from what I read
> someplace else about blobs, this may not work quite right...
>

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> POV-Ray is not a get-rich-quick scheme.

What!!!??!?!?!?!!

--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA



---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.406 / Virus Database: 229 - Release Date: 21/10/2002

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" <ric### [at] kitty5com> a écrit dans le message de news:
3db67aae$1@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
> > POV-Ray is not a get-rich-quick scheme.
>
> What!!!??!?!?!?!!

Sorry for that. And there's worse...
I heard it can't be used to enlarge body parts. And if "you're married and
lonely", you'll stay that way.

G.

--

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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 12:45:42 +0200, "Gilles Tran" <tra### [at] inapginrafr>
wrote:

>I heard it can't be used to enlarge body parts. 

It has been proven to enlarge knuckles, wrist tendons, diopters,
bellies, beards as well as the adrenal gland (as in "Oooh oooh 11pps
*drool* *faints*")

>And if "you're married and lonely", you'll stay that way.

It's also been shown to lead to the latter without the former being
true.


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

Post a reply to this message

I have been following the mails on this issue. I feel I must make a
short contribution. (Sorry, longer than I expected!)

My feeling is that you might be best served in the long term with GPL.
You have the following protection:

- Your copyright is protected even in any derivative work.

- All derivative work will be available to the public, with you still
retained as primary author. The code cannot be compiled into a black
box.

- The code will be improved, debugged if need be, but you will always be
principal author.

- If anyone violates your rights, FSF will help you in litigation, with
their lawyers.

Of course, GPL allows anyone to use your code for any commercial
purpose, and charge as much money as they want. This is probably your
nightmare scenario, someone making millions, and you getting nothing.
But the chances of that are small, especially when your code is open and
in the public domain.

I agree with others that it is in your interest to let the povray
community modify, and add to your system. This will be the 'education'
that you refer to in your license, and it will only enhance your profile
and recognition. As the primary author, you will probably continue to be
the most skilled user of the files, as you will keenly follow all
improvements, and anyone wanting to hire a programmer for a job will
probably approach you first.

----------

Some background might be of interest. 

I and a partner run a technical typesetting business, working on
mathematical journals. Main office is in India. We use almost entirely
free (mostly GPL) software, with Linux as the operating system, and TeX
as the typesetting engine. We are almost unique in the industry. Most
companies use bespoke software, at great expense. We have less bugs,
almost no software overheads, and we therefore have a higher profit
margin than our competitors. So I unashamedly say that we are making
good money out of free software, and keen to advertise that fact to our
clients. Less overheads means better conditions for our staff, and more
relaxed attitude in the office.

We also do our bit and contribute to free software. As an example, my
partner is the author of PDFscreen, a package (GPL) that produces linked
PDF documents from starndard Latex files, without using Distiller. The
package was released about 4 years ago, quickly added to and debugged by
third parties, and now has a user base of thousands. Someone mentioned
google. You can do a search on pdfscreen to see how people are using it.

Although many people have contributed, my partner, Radhakrishnan is the
undisputed author, and the name always associated with the package. If a
big publisher wanted to do something really serious with this, he would
probably be called upon.

So this is a live example of how you could distribute your software. I
think that the GPL software is the best way of attacking the competing
commercial software, and the guys whose only measurement of 'success' is
in dollars. I hope that in the long run, GPL will disarm them.

--------------

If you are bored already, then you won't have got this far. But you
might ask what the hell I am doing here, and not counting my money from
the business!

Well, because I discovered povray recently and fell in love with it,
just as I fell in love with TeX (in 1983!). There are many parallels:

- It's the best software in the field
- It's free
- The output can't be surpassed
- It's improving all the time
- It's code driven
- It can read from and write to external files

One specific possible application is to use povray as a graphics package
to be used by TeX to embed graphics into interactive documents. So TeX
would write out a povray file, which would run through povray, and the
result be called back again into a pdf file. An example would be
navigation buttons, with the text passed from TeX as a parameter. This
would fit nicely into pdfscreen. We could then make even nicer documents
than we are doing now.

I also want to write a library for drawing an optical layout in the
laboratory. (My other life is in Optics and Holography.) I am
particularly interested in ray tracing through holograms. Most optical
software uses forward ray tracing, but I have a feeling that for
holograms, backwards ray tracing is more appropriate. That's probably
going into too much detail now.

----------------

As a conclusion, the way to get povray out of the 'hobby' area and into
the big world, where it belongs, is to blast the world with freebies, to
show them that there is an alternative to 'corporate' software.
Companies are already questioning their wisdom in investing heavily in
packaged, professionally supported software. And when they do come
round, it's yourselves they will have to turn to for advice and
consultancy.

----------------

Sorry for the long mail, guys. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Tim Nikias wrote:
> I guess for cases like "snow-piling", it would be
> best to build specifically designed systems for
> just this task, by cropping some useful algorithms
> from the existing system and creating a new,
> less versatile system.
> In this case, I'd say:
> -Drop particles onto surfaces with the typical
> particle routine, just let them drop until they
> sort of stay where they are.
> -As soon as they've stopped, add them to a
> file which is loaded to be part of the object that
> particles are to bounce off from
> 
> This might require some tweaking to the systems
> core routine, cause new objects will be popping
> up all over the place...

I used a similar trick for placing leaves on the ground in "Portrait of 
Autumn" (which I really should work on some more.. if I can find the 
time): generating a layer of leaves and then adding them to an 
"everything" object for trace() purposes. It works well enough, but 
makes for some ugly code.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

In article <3db5e6b8@news.povray.org>,
 "Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote:
>> I actually think the odds for earning some cash that way are
>> better then through direct sales - in the long run that is.
>
>Well, I fail to see how.

I once wrote an enhancement for PHP's ftp routines that allowed ftping 
directly to a string (or directly from a string, I can't remember now), 
in a manner similar to what PHP's file access routines could do with a 
file. It was completely unnecessary, because PHP's file access routines 
could work with URLs.

It was really a problem with the documentation--at the time, PHP's FTP 
documentation did not refer to the file access documentation for people 
needing those features. So I added a note to the PHP documentation 
comment area (PHP's web documentation is the only programming language 
documentation for which I prefer the on-line version to printed version) 
noting what I had done and why it was unnecessary.

Obviously, the direct sales for such a product, were I tðhave marketed 
it, would have been nil; the functionality was completely unnecessary. 
But because of that comment I have actually received (and been paid for) 
a review job for the FTP section of a PHP book :*)

(note follow-ups)

Jerry
-- 
http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you've
depleted the lake."--It Isn't Murder If They're Yankees
(http://www.hoboes.com/jerry/Murder/)

Post a reply to this message

"Rune" <run### [at] mobilixnetdk> wrote in message
news:3db1d036@news.povray.org...
> My particle system is finally released!
> . . .
> You can download the system and
> also see animations of all the sample scene files here:
> http://runevision.com/3d/include/particles/
>
> Rune

Tried the link, but failed:

Microsoft JET Database Engine error '80004005'
System resource exceeded.
/include/header.asp, line 144

Not available today?

--
Robert Chaffe
http://www.donovansweb.com/~chaffe/

Post a reply to this message

Robert Chaffe wrote:
> Tried the link, but failed:
>
> Microsoft JET Database Engine error '80004005'
> System resource exceeded.
> /include/header.asp, line 144
>
> Not available today?

No, try tomorrow. :(

This error on my site happens way too often lately. I'm trying to
contact my web hotel provider to hear what can be done.

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