A couple of months ago I put forward the idea to separate the rendering
engine from the user interface and got a flat NO (actually it was almost a
flame war!!!) from the POV-Ray team. I think the only way to use POV-Ray is
like what TextureView does, i.e. shelling out POV-Ray, making
it render a file and intecepting the image output. Not a great idea, but
THEY (POV-Ray team) would not even accept the idea of dinamically linked
modules... so I think this is the end.

Alessandro Coppo
a.c### [at] iolit
www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Way/8111/

Hassoun Karam wrote in message <371B4CDA.522252A5@sympatico.ca>...
>Hi
>
>i would like to know if there is a free API for pov-ray 3.1 for win95,
>or anything else that would be considered as such.
>
>thanks in advance
>Hassoun
>

Post a reply to this message

"Alessandro Coppo" <a.c### [at] iolit> wrote:

>A couple of months ago I put forward the idea to separate the rendering
>engine from the user interface and got a flat NO (actually it was almost a
>flame war!!!) from the POV-Ray team. I think the only way to use POV-Ray is
>like what TextureView does, i.e. shelling out POV-Ray, making
>it render a file and intecepting the image output. Not a great idea, but
>THEY (POV-Ray team) would not even accept the idea of dinamically linked
>modules... so I think this is the end.

We provide the GUIEXT system on Windows, which is a dynamically linked module.
This is the technique that TextureView uses. If that isn't good enough for you,
well, too bad. We've been burnt before by unscrupulous individuals who want to
steal our hard work. We're not suggesting that you're in that category but as
with anything, the actions of a small minority ruin things for the majority.

I find your attitude disheartening (in fact, somewhat rude). We have reasons
for our decision. While we don't expect you to agree (you're welcome to your
own opinion), we do expect you to respect that decision.

Post a reply to this message

Alessandro Coppo wrote:

> A couple of months ago I put forward the idea to separate the rendering
> engine from the user interface and got a flat NO (actually it was almost a
>

I'am a bit confused is not povray a command line utility? Under unix I dont
even hava a UI.


> flame war!!!) from the POV-Ray team. I think the only way to use POV-Ray is
> like what TextureView does, i.e. shelling out POV-Ray, making
> it render a file and intecepting the image output. Not a great idea, but
> THEY (POV-Ray team) would not even accept the idea of dinamically linked
> modules... so I think this is the end.
>

Hmm whats wrong with it ? What do you want to do get access to the internal
representation and directly insert object whitout going thru the povray
language?? That would be quite limiting to future development I think.


>
> Alessandro Coppo
> a.c### [at] iolit
> www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Way/8111/
>
> Hassoun Karam wrote in message <371B4CDA.522252A5@sympatico.ca>...
> >Hi
> >
> >i would like to know if there is a free API for pov-ray 3.1 for win95,
> >or anything else that would be considered as such.
> >
> >thanks in advance
> >Hassoun
> >

Post a reply to this message

In article <371E4E5B.5476FA8E@canit.se> , Kenneth Johansson <ken### [at] canitse>
wrote:

> I'am a bit confused is not povray a command line utility? Under unix I dont
> even hava a UI.

The Windows and Macintosh versions provide a Graphical User Interface.


    Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Not at all, it is very easy to turn it off(saves memory :-) at least in windows.


Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> In article <371E4E5B.5476FA8E@canit.se> , Kenneth Johansson <ken### [at] canitse>
> wrote:
> 
> > I'am a bit confused is not povray a command line utility? Under unix I dont
> > even hava a UI.
> 
> The Windows and Macintosh versions provide a Graphical User Interface.
> 
>     Thorsten

-- 
//Spider
        [ spi### [at] bahnhofse ]-[ http://www.bahnhof.se/~spider/ ]
What I can do and what I could do, I just don't know anymore
                "Marian"
        By: "Sisters Of Mercy"

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 10:25:37 GMT, povray.org admin team wrote:
>We provide the GUIEXT system on Windows, which is a dynamically linked module.
>This is the technique that TextureView uses. If that isn't good enough for you,
>well, too bad. We've been burnt before by unscrupulous individuals who want to
>steal our hard work. We're not suggesting that you're in that category but as
>with anything, the actions of a small minority ruin things for the majority.

I've been wondering about something.  Please, don't take this as an insult
or a second-guess or anything, as I have the greatest respect for the Team
and for your right to choose your own distribution and licensing terms - I
for one am happy to be able to see source code at all, considering some of
the alternatives.  But perhaps someone could clear this up for me.

POVLEGAL.DOC already says this:

  No portion of the POV-Ray source code may be incorporated into another 
  program unless it is clearly a custom version of POV-Ray that includes 
  all of the basic functions of POV-Ray.

and this: 

  Any attempt to obscure the fact that the user is running POV-Ray or to 
  obscure that this is an unofficial version expressly prohibited.[1]

What is the reasoning behind the further prohibition of things that can be
used to break either of the two rules above but could also be used for good?

I mean, if I'm a bad guy and I'm going to steal the POV code for my own 
nefarious purposes, I'm not going to be scared off by yet another paragraph
telling me I can't do it.  If I'm a good guy and I plan to follow the terms
of the license, then even if I'm allowed to add new interfaces I won't add 
any that are designed to violate the terms quoted above.  

I guess I could understand an additional explicit prohibition of interfaces 
that could reasonably be expected to be (mis)used to violate other provisions 
of the license, even if they're not designed for that purpose, but the current 
language does seem overly broad to me.

Of course, portability is an admirable goal as well, and the current terms do 
help to enhance that, but I've never seen that mentioned as one of the goals 
of the license.  Again, this is not intended to be a criticism, but a sincere 
request for additional enlightenment.

[1] I might note that the second quoted item is not a complete sentence and
is therefore technically meaningless.  This should perhaps be remedied in a 
future version.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 14:28:57 -0400, Hassoun Karam <has### [at] sympaticoca> wrote:
>where can i get the GUIEXT for win95? is there any tutorial with it?

GUIEXT, or GUI Extensions, are a part of the Windows source code, which you
should be able to get from the same place you got your copy of POV-Ray. The 
existing documentation is somewhat scant, but there are a handful of people 
in this newsgroup who would no doubt be happy to help you with any of the 
tough parts.  I would suggest that you first thoroughly understand the sample 
code before attempting to write your own GUI extension.

Post a reply to this message

>  Any attempt to obscure the fact that the user is running POV-Ray or to 
>  obscure that this is an unofficial version expressly prohibited.[1]
>
>What is the reasoning behind the further prohibition of things that can be
>used to break either of the two rules above but could also be used for good?

While I haven't checked the complete text in povlegal.doc, it's probably there
to stop people from taking an officially-compiled version, and somehow (at run
time or otherwise), defeating the splash-screen, or running the DOS version in
an invisible console, or some such.

-- ChrisC

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 08:59:59 GMT, new### [at] povrayorg (Chris Cason)
wrote:

>>  Any attempt to obscure the fact that the user is running POV-Ray or to 
>>  obscure that this is an unofficial version expressly prohibited.[1]
>>
>>What is the reasoning behind the further prohibition of things that can be
>>used to break either of the two rules above but could also be used for good?
>
>While I haven't checked the complete text in povlegal.doc, it's probably there
>to stop people from taking an officially-compiled version, and somehow (at run
>time or otherwise), defeating the splash-screen, or running the DOS version in
>an invisible console, or some such.

But that's what the line quoted above does.  What I was asking was
why, if that line is already there, is there yet more verbiage later
attempting to prohibit exactly the same thing by way of prohibiting a
much larger set of things, i.e. additional interfaces.

Post a reply to this message