×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

POV-Ray Is Now FLOSS

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the gifts-to-all dept.

Graphics 121

An anonymous reader writes "Starting with version 3.7, POV-Ray is released under the AGPLv3 (or later) license and thus is Free Software according to the FSF definition. 'Free software' means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. Full source code is available, allowing users to build their own versions and for developers to incorporate portions or all of the POV-Ray source into their own software provided it is distributed under a compatible license (for example, the AGPL3 or — at their option — any later version). The POV-Ray developers also provide officially-supported binaries for selected platforms (currently only Microsoft Windows, but expected to include OS X shortly)." Update: 11/14 21:57 GMT by U L : The previous distribution terms and source modification license.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

121 comments

What was the previous license (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 5 months ago | (#45423956)

What was the previous license? I only ask because I remember being able to download the source code for a long time. The reason I remember this is because I built the source code on my Raspberry Pi, to do some benchmarking, and recall that it took quite a while to compile.

Re:What was the previous license (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424046)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POV-Ray#Licensing

Re:What was the previous license (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#45424060)

Previously released under the "a href="http://www.povray.org/povlegal-3.6.html">POV-Ray License.

One of those somewhat oddball project-specific licenses that are free-ish, in spirit; but either through some specific limitation, or just bad/old wording, inconveniently incompatible with most 'Free as in FOSS' projects.

Re:What was the previous license (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424092)

Damn, fucked up my link, the URL is good though.

Re:What was the previous license (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424090)

The previous license required that all releases of products derived from the source code had to be released through the POV development team. You could see the POV-Ray code, you could modify the code and release your changes as patches, but you couldn't release your changed version of the software as a complete entity. I believe the idea was to promote compatibility and diminish fragmentation.

QPL-like (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#45424140)

That requirement reminds me of the QPL [gnu.org]. However, though FSF agrees that such a requirement "causes major practical inconvenience", FSF doesn't claim that it makes the software non-free. Were there other objectionable terms in the POV-Ray 3.6 license?

Re:QPL-like (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425406)

One of the Four Freedoms is "the freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor," so if distribution is restricted it's not really Free. Or not as Free as it could be.

Re:QPL-like (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#45426926)

Distributing a modified version in the form of the official distribution and a patch to create the modified version from the official distribution is still allowed under QPL-style licenses. It's an inconvenience, not a substantive restriction.

Re:What was the previous license (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424094)

What was the previous license? I only ask because I remember being able to download the source code for a long time. The reason I remember this is because I built the source code on my Raspberry Pi, to do some benchmarking, and recall that it took quite a while to compile.

It was non-free because it didn't permit creation of derivative works (i.e. it was approximately equivalent to the CC-*-ND creative commons licenses). It also had a nasty clause that forbade you from using the software if you also installed software written or distributed by somebody who had previously violated their license.

Re:What was the previous license (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 5 months ago | (#45424436)

Doesn't that just sound like the kind of clause that ends up in the license after a few too many hours after five and a couple of beers?

Re:What was the previous license (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424562)

It also had a nasty clause that forbade you from using the software if you also installed software written or distributed by somebody who had previously violated their license.

Now that's a bad clause. How were you supposed to know that? Imagine someone has violated the license before, but then got a job at Microsoft, writing Windows code. Then according to that license, you'd be prohibited from running POV-Ray on a computer running any version of Windows containing some of that guy's code. Or what if you bought a copy of Windows on CD, and the shop owner (who clearly distributed Windows) has violated the POV-Ray license before?

Re:What was the previous license (1)

somersault (912633) | about 5 months ago | (#45425014)

Or imagine the authors violated their own license by mistake :D

Re:What was the previous license (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425530)

Maybe that's what happened to effect the change in license.

POV-Ray Developers: Hey, Linus, we really like your kernel. In fact, all of us have it installed on our development systems!
Linus Torvalds: Thanks, I like POV-Ray, too. I made my own derivative version a few years back, and...
POV-Ray Developers: FUCK!

Re:What was the previous license (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | about 5 months ago | (#45424136)

The old license [povray.org] was open source but had restrictions on commercial use.

The old license is less permissive about commercial use:

Subject to the other terms of this license, the User is permitted to use the Software in a profit-making enterprise, provided such profit arises primarily from use of the Software and not from distribution of the Software or a work including the Software in whole or part.

Redistribution is more restricted:

This licence does not grant any right of re-distribution or use in any manner other than the above. The Company has separate license documents that apply to other uses (such as re-distribution via the internet or on CD)

Re:What was the previous license (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424246)

If it had restriction on redistribution, then it is by definition, not open source.

GPL, Apache, all have restrictions against badness (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about 5 months ago | (#45424366)

The GPL licence, the Apache license, CCa, and just about anything but the WTFPL have restrictions on redistribution. Typical restrictions include:

If you distribute, you may not further restrict others from doing the same.
If you distribute binaries, you must distribute source.
If you distribute, you must acknowledge the original author.

Re:What was the previous license (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 5 months ago | (#45424372)

Since the source was downloadable, viewable, and modifiable (as long as you didn't redistribute the modified version), it was "open source", just not of the "free/libre" variety.

Re:What was the previous license (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#45424514)

While technically within the dictionary definition, trying to save that meaning is probably about as hopeful as trying to save 'hacker' from becoming a synonym with 'cracker'(the geek kind, not the white-trash pejorative kind).

Especially if you are an Important Customer, even big, serious, proprietary software (Like Windows) might be available for a look.(I'm not going to copy/paste them here; but Microsoft has about a zillion different levels of access embedded under the term 'Shared Source', which provide good examples of various approaches to the genre). In embedded circles, where it's closer to being a technical necessity, large chunks of quite-proprietary-indeed-get-out-your-checkbook OSes, if not always 100% of them, are available in source form because you'll need that to do your board port. You even get the license to redistribute your binaries with whatever device you are licensing for. You'll pay, of course.

Re:What was the previous license (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45427082)

Not according to opensource.org/osd

Re: What was the previous license (1)

muridae (966931) | about 5 months ago | (#45425268)

The problem with the old license was that the code was "opened" before the GPL was around. POV-Ray team came up with a license and spent years porting from Amiga to Linux to Windows to OSX under that license. Some, many in fact, of the original code contributors could not be found to allow the current team to just relicense the code. Since a rewrite to C++ was occurring at the same time, that gave the opportunity to rewrite what could not be relicensed.

Re: What was the previous license (0)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 5 months ago | (#45425598)

So you're saying if I rewrite somebody else's code in a different language, then I can effectively license it however I want? Since all C is valid C++ (I think), it would be trivial to convert from C to C++, and the relicense the source code however I want. There's even programs that will translate from one language to another. Simply putting the code in another language shouldn't mean that you own it. How much code do I have to change in order to call something my own?

Re: What was the previous license (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425942)

Muridae, you are quite correct. It all started on Compuserve and the team basically made up the rules as they went along. There were no websites back then telling anyone how to license things.

FLOSSy wording (1)

themushroom (197365) | about 5 months ago | (#45424038)

I presume this acronym means Free License Open Source Software, since I've never heard it before.

Re:FLOSSy wording (2)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#45424068)

L is "libre", a term borrowed from Romance languages that distinguishes the GNU sense of "free" from the "without charge" sense of "free".

Re:FLOSSy wording (0)

Inser_Name_Here (992615) | about 5 months ago | (#45424082)

Free Libre Open Source Software, as redundancy to avoid confusion over the meaning of the word "free".

Re:FLOSSy wording (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424102)

Contrast "gratis", which is freely provided binaries.

As opposed to FGOSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424316)

Free Gratis Open Source Software ;)

Re:FLOSSy wording (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424754)

Free-As-In-Libre-Software... FAILS.

The devil's dictionary: (0, Flamebait)

etash (1907284) | about 5 months ago | (#45424040)

POV-Ray: noun, the software ray tracer that could but didn't. Bloatware is known to reach sooner their next version than POV-Ray. It's also the ray-tracer which is coded for people living in a planet without GPUs. Synonyms: Duke Nuke'm, i_can_write_one_line_of_code_per_day_fuck_yeah, I_am_a_cpu_only_dinosaur. EOD(efinition)

Re:The devil's dictionary: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424084)

Ha ha, yeah, you're not exactly familiar with the difference between a raytracer (what POV-Ray is) and what amounts to a triangle flinger (what most GPU acceleration is), are you?

Raytracer written in OpenCL (2)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#45424156)

I think the intended contrast was between a raytracer written in C and a raytracer written in OpenCL, a language designed to run on GPUs without necessarily using their triangle rasterizing circuits.

Re:Raytracer written in OpenCL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424386)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that POVRay predates OpenCL by about twenty years.

Re:Raytracer written in OpenCL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424518)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that POVRay predates OpenCL by about twenty years.

Captain Obvious to the rescue!!!

Re:Raytracer written in OpenCL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424620)

So basically, they released it as completely libre only after it became worthless and defunct? Nice.

Re:Raytracer written in OpenCL (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#45425346)

The x86 port that came to be named POV-Ray is from 1991. OpenCL was released in spec form in Dec. 2008, with actual implementation naturally lagging somewhat.

Re:Raytracer written in OpenCL (1)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#45427052)

Even though POV-Ray has been around well over a decade longer than OpenCL, that's kind of beside the point. The POV-Ray developers could still add an OpenCL raytracing engine, and as I understand etash's complaint, POV-Ray is becoming irrelevant by their not doing so.

Re:The devil's dictionary: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424206)

Sorry, I can't make out what you're saying with those two fat cocks lodged in your mouth.

Re:The devil's dictionary: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424274)

Just FYI, but your phrase "known to reach sooner their next version" isn't quite proper English. The correct way to phrase that would be "known to reach their next version sooner" (with the adverb "sooner" coming after the direct object, not before). The way you phrased it sounds very inelegant to a native English speaker.

I'm guessing your first language was Spanish (or one of the other romance languages). Am I correct?

Re:The devil's dictionary: (1)

etash (1907284) | about 5 months ago | (#45424346)

thanks, you're absolutely right and btw I meant abandonware, not bloatware. Bloatware doesn't make sense in that sentence. Greek is my first language.

Re:The devil's dictionary: (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 months ago | (#45424654)

Well now that you can publish your GPU compute fork we expect good work in a timely fashion. Get busy. Also, if you could work in a Blender module and an Android version, that would be nice.

AGPL ... DOA License (2, Insightful)

Electrawn (321224) | about 5 months ago | (#45424096)

Nasty, nasty license. GPL used to cause lawyers to run around with the flamethrowers, then they learned all the nuances and all was well. AGPL? Now they run around with flamethrowers and nukes. As they should...

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 5 months ago | (#45424194)

AGPL is GPLv3 with one added term: any modified program that exposes functionality through a service over a network must be a quine [wikipedia.org].

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424450)

agpl is a nasty, nasty license with built-in security implications if you use agpl licensed code on a public facing web site or service.

DO NOT USE AGPL CODE, EVER.. and tell developers that use it to drop the "A" or replace it with another "L"

[citation needed] (2)

game kid (805301) | about 5 months ago | (#45424618)

I'd like to see examples of such security risks. Gitorious [gitorious.org] is one website that uses AGPL3 code, and hosts projects such as Qt [gitorious.org] and Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup [gitorious.org]. Given its profile I'm sure Gitorious and the hosted projects would love to know too.

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424686)

agpl is a nasty, nasty license with built-in security implications if you use agpl licensed code on a public facing web site or service.

Care to elaborate? Unless you're stupid enough to embed passwords in the modified code or similar, I don't see how the ability to download the source code would have any security implications.

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424814)

You are basically suggesting that security-by-obscurity is good practise?
A secure program is secure even if it's source code is public. Even more, a program cannot be said secure if it can be exploited knowing the source.

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425038)

A quine? What is that, a loofah?

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425550)

No a falafel, at least that is what Bill tells me.

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (1)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about 5 months ago | (#45426808)

Quine, Bobby.

Bobby was a cowboy. Bobby was a cracksman, a burglar, casing mankind's extended electronic nervous system, rustling data and credit in the crowded matrix, monochrome nonspace where the only stars are dense concentrations of information, and high above it all burn corporate galaxies and the cold spiral arms of military systems.

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424622)

As it should be. That sort of lawyers should stay well away from genuine open source projects.

Now that pov ary is AGPL I can finally think about contributing to it without being afraid some commercial weasel will leech of my code.

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about 5 months ago | (#45425002)

Not just lawyers. I have an absolute closed door policy on AGPL. I won't even use AGPL-licensed software for personal use. Its restrictions are the absolute antithesis of freedom in my world view.

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425212)

I hope you don't use GPL code then either because AGPL is GPL with a loophole closed and both share the same essential view of freedom.

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45426576)

AGPL is a teap to force you buy comercial licenses.
SEE FUNAMBOL FOR AN INSTANCE.
I worked for them and their only concern was the way to cash cow stoopid losers like u.

DANIELE

Re:AGPL ... DOA License (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425564)

AGPL is just GPL with an extra provision saying, "Just give the users the damn source and quit looking for loopholes!"

Re:AGPL ... DOA License? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425718)

And what is your motive to run around spreading FUD?

bad summary (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about 5 months ago | (#45424186)

We are all expected to understand what a FOSS (what the hell is the L for!?) license is, but perhaps you should explain what POV-Ray actually is?

Re:bad summary (5, Informative)

Enry (630) | about 5 months ago | (#45424210)

Us old timers know what it is. It's a ray tracer from the early early days (it was used to render one of the covers of my books back in the mid 90s). I honestly thought it went the way of the dodo since I haven't heard about it in years.

Re:bad summary (1)

Tiger4 (840741) | about 5 months ago | (#45424466)

Us old timers know what it is. It's a ray tracer from the early early days (it was used to render one of the covers of my books back in the mid 90s). I honestly thought it went the way of the dodo since I haven't heard about it in years.

I've run it in MS-DOS many times. Got a nice rendering of The Ringworld system, complete with background stars and shadow squares. The last time was on a Vista machine. A NEW Vista machine, I made some springs or some such thing. Haven't been back since.

Re:bad summary (1)

Terrin2k (979690) | about 5 months ago | (#45425468)

I've run it in MS-DOS many times. Got a nice rendering of The Ringworld system, complete with background stars and shadow squares. The last time was on a Vista machine. A NEW Vista machine, I made some springs or some such thing. Haven't been back since.

Just curious -- where did your Ringworld scene code come from? I wrote one up back in the mid-90's that had what you describe. ~ Terrin

Re:bad summary (4, Informative)

shawnmchorse (442605) | about 5 months ago | (#45424484)

Very old timers remember using DKBTrace before it turned into POV-Ray. I actually called the "You Can Call Me Ray" BBS that originally hosted all of this, too. It's nice sometimes when a project like this from a completely different era is still alive and kicking.

Re:bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424626)

Yes, I know what povray is. It's the very useful package which was only very recently completely removed from Debian (and therefore also from Ubuntu and other distros) apparently due to its licensing...

Re:bad summary (1)

rlwhite (219604) | about 5 months ago | (#45424224)

My first thought was that someone was open sourcing a fictional implementation of the Point of View Gun [youtube.com] from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie.

Re:bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45426080)

Yeah, my first thought on seeing "POV" on Wikipedia was for POV-Ray!

Trivia for those who haven't looked it up yet: the "POV" in POV-Ray stands for "Persistence of Vision."

Re:bad summary (2)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 5 months ago | (#45424398)

FLOSS = "Free/Libre Open Source Software". The "L" is to give more information about "Free", contrasting it to "free/gratis".

POV-Ray is a raytracer. Raytracing is an image rendering method that follows rays of light around a scene, keeping track of interactions with the geometry in the scene.

It's for porn, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424576)

It's for porn, right?

Re:bad summary (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#45424588)

It's a way of making CGI (computer graphics) that actually look real. The engine calculates your light sources and then sends virtual light-rays from them to bounce of the objects in your scene and return them to the camera (the screen) The end result can be, if done right, photo-realistic. Also, the entire screen is by its very nature truly 3D. You can reposition the camera and move around the scene at will.
Here's a pretty old one: http://hof.povray.org/images/warm_up_Big.jpg [povray.org]

Someday... maybe a long way off... there will be Raytracing game engines. Current CPU tech is a bit slow for them. But when they do arise, games will truly look real.

Re:bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424680)

Someday... maybe a long way off... there will be Raytracing game engines. Current CPU tech is a bit slow for them. But when they do arise, games will truly look real.

O RLY:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/gpu-ray-tracing.html

Re:bad summary (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 5 months ago | (#45424994)

I'm a fan of unbiased rendering honestly, though Blender's Cycles is looking pretty spiffy lately.

Have a look at what luxrender can do [luxrender.net] - this is one of the unbiased ones. It's GPL, btw.

photon mapping vs ray tracing (1)

j1m+5n0w (749199) | about 5 months ago | (#45425132)

What you have described is called photon mapping. I think there is some support for photon mapping in at least some version of povray (I'm not sure if it ever made it in to an official release), but in any case it's an optional feature. It is more accurate to refer to povray as a ray-tracer. In ray-tracing, you send out rays from the camera position and test them for intersection against objects in the scene. These rays can in turn spawn additional rays (for reflection and refraction), and at each hit location you can cast a ray back to each light source to test whether that light is occluded by an object.

There actually are some pretty good game engines that do ray tracing. I'd recommend looking into Arauna and Brigade [igad.nhtv.nl]. (Last time I tried them they were a bit sluggish and ran at a low resolution, but that was about 5 years ago so things have probably gotten better.)

Re:bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424820)

NO, LMGTFY etc.

FLOSS is a quite standard term.
POVray is only the most famous ray-tracer from not so very long ago (ok, in computerland 10 years is a century, but still).

Software development needs to grow a memory. I you are a software developer (i.e. Slashdot's intended audience) you *should* know your classics.

No wonder we keeep re-invening wheels all the time. *sheesh*

Re:bad summary (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 5 months ago | (#45424852)

perhaps you should explain what POV-Ray actually is?

Yeah, because google doesn't exist... Or would you like me to explain what a search engine and the internet are?

Here's a famous poster rendered with POV-Ray from space (the ISS). [povray.org]

Oh, I forgot you might not be a nerd for which this news is for. Perhaps you want me to explain what the ISS is?

Well, you see a when an aerospace engineer loves another celestial body very much they-- Fuck off, Lamer!

Re:bad summary (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about 5 months ago | (#45424966)

I know what they are. (for the record I don't like POV-Ray's results that I've seen - I'm a fan of unbiased renders like Lux [luxrender.net] though Blender's Cycles is looking pretty damn good as well these days)

Doesn't change the fact that it was a shitty summary.

Re:bad summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425344)

The summary sucks, the reporting sucks, and you are an asshole.

Cool... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 5 months ago | (#45424202)

I remember rendering "ntreal" on an SGI workstation back in the '90s, it took about two days and I remember watching the individual pixels appearing and looking at all the details.

I just did it again and it took about 10 seconds and I'm like, "meh, next"

You'd think they'd have some different demos now...

Too little, too late? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424238)

POV-Ray is incredibly influental in scope of PC graphics software, but I think we can all agree that time has ran past of it already.

Re:Too little, too late? (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 months ago | (#45424738)

Apparently RISC, MIPS and other such relics are back in vogue. Why not POVRay? Put a nice GUI on it and retrofit some gpgpu and it is off to the races. I wonder how well it would do with mandelbulb.

Still non-free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424538)

AGPL is 100% non-free, so no it's not FLOSS.

Word salad (2, Insightful)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 5 months ago | (#45424610)

Software that 99.9% of us will never use has been re-licensed with an even more restrictive license. The word salad about being "free" was gratuitous.

Re:Word salad (2)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about 5 months ago | (#45427248)

Software that 99.9% of us will never use has been re-licensed with an even more restrictive license.

You're not familiar with the old POV-Ray license, are you?

The original license didn't let you even distribute a modified version. You had to distribute your changes as a patchset, so anyone wanting to use your version could get the official code, patch it with your changes, then compile it.* So GPLv2, despite all its restrictions, is less restrictive!

Now this is AGPLv3, not GPLv2, but the differences (A=restrictions on using it to provide a network service, v3=patent-defense and tivoisation stuff) are simply not relevant to typical POV-Ray users. There may be an argument (especially in a jurisdiction where the AGPL is binding on non-distributors -- basically jurisdictions that enforce shrinkwrap EULAs) that these are, for some hypothetical user, "more restrictive" than the old license, but for the ordinary POV-Ray user, it's substantially less restrictive in practice.

* This sort of thing was actually not uncommon in more-or-less open-source software from the '80s and early '90s, for a couple reasons. First, the lack of established licenses to use (the 3-clause BSD didn't exist till '99, and the GPL wasn't well-known beyond in the UNIX community until Linux became popular) meant people were making up their own licenses, perhaps without thinking through all the implications. Second, before home internet access was wide-spread, users of home computers shared software via a hodgepodge of BBSes and sneakernet, so the risk of someone receiving a modified version, finding a bug or limitation due to the modifications, and not having the ability to simply download the original version was not the far-fetched silliness it is today. While I think, even under the conditions of the early '90s, the freedom to distribute modified versions should outweigh the benefit of "protecting" users from problems with those modifications, a lot of people didn't.

I miss their CDs... wish I could find them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45424636)

Back in the olden days, POVRay used to have these awesome CDs with art on them. I'd happily spend some $$ to have someone send me a copy...

Most users won't care about the change (3, Informative)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 5 months ago | (#45424752)

This isn't a case of a previously commercial program going open-source. It is a relatively minor licensing alteration to an existing product.

The changes may be of interest to die-hard Stallmanites, and to companies that want to make a profit from POV-Ray derivative works (assuming there are any), but to average users it's a big nothingburger.

Re:Most users won't care about the change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45426608)

call it a project is a big stance.

Re:Most users won't care about the change (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 5 months ago | (#45426634)

Could you not say "nothingburger"? It has the distinct disadvantage of sounding hipsterish, and the -burger suffix adds nothing to the meaning. In the future, please use the English word "nothing" as it already exists, means the same thing, and won't confuse ESL speakers. Sorry, I spend a lot of time every day dealing with people who speak English perfectly well but can't understand people when they invent words that don't need to exist. Thanks!

Re:Most users won't care about the change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45427272)

You seem upset.

Former Mouseketeer and fading pop-star... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425182)

... insinuates she's a lesbian but, of course, not as an obvious publicity stunt to resuscitate her dying career.
In other news, PoV-Ray recently announced that...

So What (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45425620)

Either it is free, as in I can make money off it, or it isn't.

Screw FLOSS, GPL, AGPL and any software that is not priced until you talk to a sales rep (ghostscript). Stupid software commies, eat dust.

This Isn't Related To Porn, Is It? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45426730)

POV, his name was Ray, and now they need to FLOSS ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...