Is there any thought of what kinds of licenses will exist on the example scene
files distributed with povray if it ever goes GPL?

I can imagine a few problematic scenarios in either direction:

1) All the basic templates are GPL'ed.  Does this mean that every scene file
that ever uses them has to be GPL'ed.

2) It ships with some files that are the copyrighted property of the artist.
Then someone wants to put povray on a live linux CD and some pointy-headed
person claims it's illegal because of the proprietary code in the files.


Are there benefits in making example scene files which are free, free as in
not-even-with-RMS's restrictions?

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:50:52 -0500, gregjohn wrote:

> Is there any thought of what kinds of licenses will exist on the example
> scene files distributed with povray if it ever goes GPL?
> 
> I can imagine a few problematic scenarios in either direction:
> 
> 1) All the basic templates are GPL'ed.  Does this mean that every scene
> file that ever uses them has to be GPL'ed.
> 
> 2) It ships with some files that are the copyrighted property of the
> artist. Then someone wants to put povray on a live linux CD and some
> pointy-headed person claims it's illegal because of the proprietary code
> in the files.
> 
> 
> Are there benefits in making example scene files which are free, free as
> in not-even-with-RMS's restrictions?

Seems to me like Creative Commons might be a good option - but I'm 
wondering how this is 'off-topic'....?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Is there any thought of what kinds of licenses will exist on the example scene
> files distributed with povray if it ever goes GPL?

  Just because the POV-Ray source code is GPL doesn't mean that the scene
files have to be. That would be as absurd as saying that every text file
you open with emacs must be GPL simply because emacs' source code is GPL.

> I can imagine a few problematic scenarios in either direction:

> 1) All the basic templates are GPL'ed.  Does this mean that every scene file
> that ever uses them has to be GPL'ed.

  No scene files or include files have to be GPL'd. They are input files
to the program, not source code.

> 2) It ships with some files that are the copyrighted property of the artist.
> Then someone wants to put povray on a live linux CD and some pointy-headed
> person claims it's illegal because of the proprietary code in the files.

  All code, including GPL code, has copyright. GPL doesn't mean the author
loses his copyrights. Distributing copyrighted code is not bound go copyright
but to a license. Even the current POV-Ray includes a detailed distribution
license for this reason.

> Are there benefits in making example scene files which are free, free as in
> not-even-with-RMS's restrictions?

  Once again: Just because POV-Ray's source code is GPL doesn't mean that
the scene files have to be.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp, your informed input is valued here, but I think you passed over the
question on the side of things not being loose enough. Are some scene files now
"All Rights Reserved"-- you probably shouldn't even use it for IRTC, and
certainly NOT for a commercial work you sell.  Say I'm talking about the entire
background shot in a scene. In my mind, this approximates the "closed source
drivers" that cause a fuss when linux distros get shipped.

Should we make the 4.0 files more loose?

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> Warp, your informed input is valued here, but I think you passed over the
> question on the side of things not being loose enough. Are some scene files now
> "All Rights Reserved"-- you probably shouldn't even use it for IRTC, and
> certainly NOT for a commercial work you sell.  Say I'm talking about the entire
> background shot in a scene. In my mind, this approximates the "closed source
> drivers" that cause a fuss when linux distros get shipped.

Some of the scene files packed with POV-Ray have been "All Rights 
Reserved" for a while. Check the Usage Provisions part of 
http://www.povray.org/povlegal.html

The closed source drivers cause a fuss when shipped with distros because 
they are being distributed. GPL applies when you distribute something, 
not on how a person uses it. The GPL on the kernel says that when you 
distribute it with modifications, those modifications need to be GPL'ed 
as well. Closed source drivers aren't, and can't be made to comply with 
the GPL, and that's the problem. It's more complex then that, really, 
but it doesn't matter to POV-Ray.

POV-Ray doesn't require that the scene code be GPL compatible, and the 
scene and include files shipped with POV-Ray have had different licenses 
for a while. I really doubt that when 4.0 is released that the scene 
code will be restricted in licenses any more then GCC restricts the 
programs you build with it. The scene and include files that have been 
shipped with previous versions will not have their licenses affected by 
the change to how the POV-Ray core is licensed.

> 
> Should we make the 4.0 files more loose?
> 

Completely different issue. This is one that can only really be answered 
by the person who creates each file.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>> Is there any thought of what kinds of licenses will exist on the example scene
>> files distributed with povray if it ever goes GPL?
> 
>   Just because the POV-Ray source code is GPL doesn't mean that the scene
> files have to be. 

Isn't that what gregjohn just said?  Isn't he asking what the license 
might be, given that what you said is the case?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>
> The closed source drivers cause a fuss when shipped with distros because
> they are being distributed. GPL applies when you distribute something,
> not on how a person uses it. The GPL on the kernel says that when you
> distribute it with modifications, those modifications need to be GPL'ed
> as well. Closed source drivers aren't, and can't be made to comply with
> the GPL, and that's the problem. It's more complex then that, really,
> but it doesn't matter to POV-Ray.
>

Some distros are not just "about" a kernel but are "about" a collection of
freeware apps you could easily download yourself if you took the time: knoppix,
edubuntu, etc.  Some of these have bristled at including povray "in the distro"
because, naturally, distributing the distro means distributing the application
set. And distributing non-GPL applications has raised heckles (FWIW, silly
ones, IMNSHO). That I know. I wonder if ***distibuting***  Billy's All Rights
Reserved SDL files would raise even more heckles if someone thought about it.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:51:26 -0500, gregjohn wrote:

> I wonder if
> ***distibuting***  Billy's All Rights Reserved SDL files would raise
> even more heckles if someone thought about it.

Unlikely.  GPL is for code, not data.

Jim

Post a reply to this message