 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was wondering if there are still plans to release a version of Povray
under an OSI compatible license (e.g. the GPL, see www.opensource.org)?
The license for Povray 3.5 stated that this would eventually happen, but
this statement seems to have disappeared in the license of 3.6 (it is
replaced by a somewhat convoluted reference to "open source distributions").
The use of an OSI incompatible license complicates the inclusion of Povray
in Linux distributions (see the recent XFree vs xorg debate) and in this way
ultimately makes things more difficult for the enduser.
Note that it would be perfectly possible for Povray to be licensed both
under its
original license and under the GPL. This is for example the case with
Mozilla
(which is even triply licensed).
Best regards,
Michel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
vdbergh <vdb### [at] luc acbe> wrote:
> The use of an OSI incompatible license complicates the inclusion of Povray
> in Linux distributions
Why? The distribution license of POV-Ray explicitly allows its distribution
in such ways as eg. a Linux distribution.
What stops a Linux distribution from including even commercial products
as long as the distribution license of that product allows it?
I don't think there's anything in the GPL license which forbids
non-GPL software to be bundled alongside GPL software.
> Note that it would be perfectly possible for Povray to be licensed both
> under its
> original license and under the GPL.
As noted in many places, distributing POV-Ray under the GPL license
is problematic because the pov-team has no permission for that. They
do not own the source code of POV-Ray completely because it has not
been made completely by them, and they have been unable to locate and
get explicit permission from all the contributors who have written
parts of the POV-Ray source during its entire 10+ years history.
The makers of POV-Ray have agreed to the usage license which was
in effect back then, and changing this license radically without
their permission would be inconsiderate at best (at worst prone to
lawsuits).
When POV-Ray is rewritten completely from scratch the license issue
can be addressed with less problems.
--
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.4152864ccdffb6835c3acc940@news.povray.org> , "vdbergh"
<vdb### [at] lucacbe> wrote:
> I was wondering if there are still plans to release a version of Povray
> under an OSI compatible license (e.g. the GPL, see www.opensource.org)?
As a matter of policy the POV-Team does not discuss future versions of
POV-Ray, their planned release date or any other feature they may or may not
have. This includes the licensing.
> Note that it would be perfectly possible for Povray to be licensed both
> under its
> original license and under the GPL. This is for example the case with
> Mozilla
> (which is even triply licensed).
You claim to have read the 3.5 license reasoning, yet you did not understand
it at all: To change the license to a lesser one, one first needs to have
the right to do so, and obviously the 3.5 license explains very well why
this is not the case. It should also be common sense that nobody can decide
to give away the work of somebody else for free without asking for
permission first. Obviously a dual-license cannot change that fact.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ok,
I have great respect for Povray and I am using it myself (on Linux).
The reason I think why Linux distributions do not include OSI incompatible
software is that they can't make bugfixes. And of course for many
of them there is a philosophical reason as well.
It was not my intention to sound aggressive or anything. I realize one
cannot
relicense the work of unknown authors. But there is also the opposite issue.
Many developers these days would not want to contribute to software with
a proprietary license...
The 3.5 license seemed to indicate that a rewrite was underway of the parts
of Povray with unknown author. In the 3.6 license this part has gone. I was
just curious why this was the case.
Best regards,
Michel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
vdbergh wrote:
>
> The reason I think why Linux distributions do not include OSI incompatible
> software is that they can't make bugfixes.
That is not true, any Linux distributor is free to apply bugfixes to
POV-Ray. The aspects of the POV-Ray license that make it not OSI
compatible have nothing to do with the interests of Linux distributors.
Note that several well known Linux distribution include POV-Ray which
contradicts your statement above as well.
> And of course for many
> of them there is a philosophical reason as well.
You probably mean ideological reasons - and at least commercial
distributors usually can't afford such a luxury.
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 06 Jul. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
tho### [at] trfde news:41529842@news.povray.org
> You claim to have read the 3.5 license reasoning, yet you did not
> understand it at all: To change the license to a lesser one, one
> first needs to have the right to do so, and obviously the 3.5 license
> explains very well why this is not the case. It should also be common
> sense that nobody can decide to give away the work of somebody else
> for free without asking for permission first. Obviously a
> dual-license cannot change that fact.
>
Btw, as I asked before - would it be possible to rewrite some old parts of
Pov code (if oryginal authors can't be contacted), so that PovTeam would be
"in touch" with authors of entire code, with could allow changing license
(to more free for example) in future?
--
http://www.raf256.com/3d/
Rafal Maj 'Raf256', home page - http://www.raf256.com/me/
Computer Graphics
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann <chr### [at] gmxde> wrote:
> That is not true, any Linux distributor is free to apply bugfixes to
> POV-Ray.
True, but when they do, the results are sometimes horrible
(one word: debian).
--
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <Xns956D876C9CB78raf256com@203.29.75.35>, "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj"
<spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> Btw, as I asked before - would it be possible to rewrite some old parts of
> Pov code (if oryginal authors can't be contacted), so that PovTeam would be
> "in touch" with authors of entire code, with could allow changing license
> (to more free for example) in future?
Everything is possible, but as stated before:
As a matter of policy the POV-Team does not discuss future versions of
POV-Ray, their planned release date or any other feature they may or may not
have. This includes the licensing.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hello,
If is not even clear that distributors can legally apply bug fixes!
This is the relevant part of the 3.6 license.
(a) the Distributor may rename, reorganise or repackage (without
omission) the files comprising the Software where such
renaming, reorganisation or repackaging is necessary to
conform to the naming or organisation scheme of the target
operating environment of the Distribution or of an established
package management system of the target operating environment
of the Distribution; and
(b) the Distributor must not otherwise rename, reorganise or
repackage the Software.
Regards,
Michel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
vdbergh wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If is not even clear that distributors can legally apply bug fixes!
> This is the relevant part of the 3.6 license.
> [...]
No, obviously bug fixes are modifications of the POV-Ray source so you
have to study the source license:
http://www.povray.org/source-license.html
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 23 Sep. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dear Thorsten,
I respect your position with regard to Povray licensing. I will limit myself
to
one last comment.
It would be nice if the Povray team took a clearer position with respect
to Povray licensing (instead of saying "we don't discuss this").
If it were clear that Povray would never be OSI compatible then this could
provide an incentive for people
to (try to) write an open source replacement. Obviously this would be a
complete waste of time if the Povray team has the intention of open
sourcing Povray anyway.
Best regards,
Michel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The 3.5 license seemed to indicate that a rewrite was underway of the parts
> of Povray with unknown author. In the 3.6 license this part has gone. I was
> just curious why this was the case.
Because it doesn't belong in the license.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
[this is directed at all readers, not just the original poster].
While we as a rule do not make comments on upcoming versions, I will
on this occasion make the following statement. Please do not attempt
to elicit further information from me regarding this.
POV-Ray version 4.0 will be under a different license. Yes, we will
have replaced the parts of the source that we cannot re-license. No,
I cannot tell you what license we will use, and nor am I looking (at
this time) for suggestions as to which to choose. At the appropriate
time I will raise a thread on the subject. Going into a discussion of
it right now would be counter-productive as I am very busy with other
issues.
-- Chris Cason
POV-Team Co-ordinator
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"vdbergh" <vdb### [at] lucacbe> wrote in message
news:web.4152b69ca8ee334f5c3acc940@news.povray.org...
>
> Dear Thorsten,
>
> I respect your position with regard to Povray licensing. I will limit
myself
> to
> one last comment.
>
> It would be nice if the Povray team took a clearer position with respect
> to Povray licensing (instead of saying "we don't discuss this").
I see a valid reason for not discussing potential future changes. There is
no way to tell if and when it will happen, so it's sort of a waste of what
limited time the povray volunteers have. It seems they will be happy (or
unhappy, but willing none the less ;) to discuss the current license.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.4152b69ca8ee334f5c3acc940@news.povray.org> , "vdbergh"
<vdb### [at] lucacbe> wrote:
> It would be nice if the Povray team took a clearer position with respect
> to Povray licensing (instead of saying "we don't discuss this").
> If it were clear that Povray would never be OSI compatible then this could
> provide an incentive for people to (try to) write an open source replacement.
You are welcome to write one. It would not be the first attempt. But if you
look around, you will quickly discover what happened to all previous
attempts.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> As noted in many places, distributing POV-Ray under the GPL license
> is problematic because the pov-team has no permission for that. They
> do not own the source code of POV-Ray completely because it has not
> been made completely by them, and they have been unable to locate and
> get explicit permission from all the contributors who have written
> parts of the POV-Ray source during its entire 10+ years history.
Warp has it exactly right. The original authors of the code included
in POV-Ray retain copyright rights to that code. As copyright holders,
they are the only ones who legally can specify license rights to that
code. The POV-Team members who happen *not* to be copyright holders
have no legal right to change the license terms of that code.
(As Warp also points out, if the POV-Team were able to contact each
and every code copyright holder and get them to stipulate licensing
under, for example, the GPL, then yes, they could generate a GPL
release of the program. For now, though, they have no right to do that.)
--
Steve Martin, CPBE CBNT
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"vdbergh" <vdb### [at] lucacbe> wrote:
> If it were clear that Povray would never be OSI compatible then this could
> provide an incentive for people
> to (try to) write an open source replacement. Obviously this would be a
> complete waste of time if the Povray team has the intention of open
> sourcing Povray anyway.
Surely there are already raytracers about that are OSI compatible. "Yafray"
for instance seems to be released under an OSI compatible license, and that
took only a five-second google search to find.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
