[App] SkyBoxer — for the mac.

[Clueless Newbie]

I got fed up using Blender to make sky boxes (due to the UI), so I wrote an application that makes skybox textures:

http://gethome.no/clund/div/SkyBoxer.zip

You can use and distribute the thing for free. Don't take credit for it, and don't charge for it (as if…). Note that I am not a professional programmer, so it might not even work on other systems than my own. It runs on my Mac Pro with 10.5.6. Supposedly, it also runs on 10.4. I think it's a universal build.

I haven't done anything in the way of memory management or garbage collection, so the thing is an absolute pig. When rendering high resolution skyboxes on a mac low on ram, it'll hog your entire system and Finder might tell you it (the app) has crashed. It hasn't (probably). Just give it time.

To use the thing, open the source image (should be an equirectangular projection — also called an equidistant cylindric projection), select the resolution from the popup menu, render, and save.

If you want some surreal skybox textures, here's a small bundle I made from NASA images:

http://gethome.no/clund/div/Planetpack.zip

The source images are included, so you can see what an "equirectangular projection" looks like (also look it up on wikipedia). You can make images that work like this by using the polar to rectangular coordinate (and vice versa) transformations of Photoshop.

[tundramagi]

Why non-commercial instead of GPL?
GPL achieves essentially the same thing, without the communist-feel-good-stab-at-those-damn-capitalist idea, and can be distributed on distros (if the app was ported to other OSs), and also can be used in other OSS projects.

[Alien]

Because GPL CAN BE SOLD.

[tundramagi]

Because GPL CAN BE SOLD.

Yes it can. But look at all Nexuiz, linux, gcc, etc (other OSS things) have given to you and others. Why hold back abit when it's time to make your contribution?

"Yea, they made their stuff fully opensource... but me... na, fuck the corporations and the fucking capitalists and the fucking buzhwaszeee"

Why shouldn't you allow your stuff to be sold (however difficult that is in reality with a _recursive_ free-opensource license) if your giving it away when people who's programs and contributions that you use allow exactly that.

The proclaimation ""Because GPL CAN BE SOLD."" holds NO weight with opensource developers: OSS developers are not avante-gaurd anti-capitalist anti-wealth anti-property communists: Richard Stallman's Free Software Movement and eventually the GPL grew out of his disgust that you could purchase a computer machine and own that but _NOT_ own and tweak that software that was ON that computer you supposedly owned. He believed that you should beable to do whatever you wished to do with your computer. The Free Software movement is really a reaction from those who believe in real and personal property rights against the ideals of imaginary property: the GPL creates a condition that existed before intelectual property when only real and personal (chattel) property existed: you could do ANYTHING you wanted to your property and whoever you sold it to could also do ANYTHING they wanted etc etc ad infinum.

Explain how "Because GPL CAN BE SOLD." is a proper response when one is using and benefiting from a GPLd game! How did that come into your mind Alien? Oh, because the developers of this game exist to serve you, and you exist to serve you... and you wouldn't want anyone "selling" your work, even though you benefit from a work that is GPLd and thus "can be sold!!111"

[divVerent]

Open source is very unusual on OS X.

[Alien]

I haven't read your whole rant yet but I might be against capitalism as an ineffective form of government. Therefore GPL sucks A LOT for me (and as it is seen, for lots of people too). If somebody wishes that they creation could be sold, they could release it as LGPL.

If GPL can't use non GPL "compatible" things it's part of GPL problem. OpenSource is not solely GPL, but GPL is part of OpenSource (this for div ).

Ok. finished reading mike's post.

1) 1st - there is whole difference between the ownership of product physical copy and being able to copy it 1000 times and distribute it as your own.
2) 2nd - opensource let's you get the source, change and adapt it to your needs. Being able to sell or not is not the question of opensource (cause the source is open) and profit shouldn't be discussed in opensource context. However, this is not the case with GPL.


Hardcoding selling rights into license is stupid cause one then uses license with exceptions/ additional clauses making it incompatible. It's not that the source would become closed and you couldn't use but it's the way you can take somebody's work and use it to gain profit for your OWN SELF without ever contributing anything back (Mplayer/ Linux kernel, other huge software projects cases).

What if dev would allow to use the project for profit only if part of that profit would be contributed back to original devs. GPL prohibits it and therefore it makes OSS development freetime job instead of actually getting payed for it.

You should be glad that Linus is paid for kernel development, otherwise you would still use hurd or minix kernel. BSD was(or still is) evil, right?

And yeah, I made huge pile of money from Nexuiz. I'm even selling your maps for 20$ a copy. You get nothing, cause GPL that permits.

[TRaK]

Anyone who takes the time to create something and make it available to the public has the right to pick whatever license he wants without having to justify his choice in any way. Unless you had a part in the creation of this said something, it is simply not your place to berate, diminish, or question the motives of the creator's decision.

I'm getting really sick of the condescending attitudes of some(not all) open-source supporters who feel they have the right to look down on or label as selfish or somesuch thing the people who make licensing decisions that don't agree with their personal views.

Anyhow, this sounds like a useful app, I've been meaning to look for something similar that is windows-compatible

[ai]

I agree with TRaK completely. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[divVerent]

I haven't read your whole rant yet but I might be against capitalism as an ineffective form of government. Therefore GPL sucks A LOT for me (and as it is seen, for lots of people too). If somebody wishes that they creation could be sold, they could release it as LGPL.

If GPL can't use non GPL "compatible" things it's part of GPL problem.

Well, Nexuiz isn't GPL by choice, but because it uses parts from Quake that are GPL. Can't be helped. Stop these "CHANGE THE LICENSE" discussions once and for all, it can't happen anyway.

OpenSource is not solely GPL, but GPL is part of OpenSource (this for div ).

Neither. GPL requires open source as a necessary condition, but not vice versa.

2) 2nd - opensource let's you get the source, change and adapt it to your needs. Being able to sell or not is not the question of opensource (cause the source is open) and profit shouldn't be discussed in opensource context. However, this is not the case with GPL.

Why? GPL does not forbid any profit from it, it just makes it unlikely to profit from it as you have to allow anyone who you give it to freely copy it to others.

What if dev would allow to use the project for profit only if part of that profit would be contributed back to original devs. GPL prohibits it and therefore it makes OSS development freetime job instead of actually getting payed for it.

Indeed, GPL prohibits writing an exception "but you can't make profit from it". Any license becomes incompatible to its true version if you add random exceptions to it.

And yeah, I made huge pile of money from Nexuiz. I'm even selling your maps for 20$ a copy. You get nothing, cause GPL that permits.

Do that. But include augenkrebs with it.

Basically: Nexuiz is GPL. Fact. Can't be changed. Forget it.

Adding the smallest exception to the GPL would make it incompatible, and thus violate id software's copyright on Quake. And we don't want THAT, do we?

Now let's evaluate Clueless Newbie's ACTUAL license terms:

You can use and distribute the thing for free. Don't take credit for it, and don't charge for it (as if…).

He does not forbid using its result for profit. He just forbids selling his PROGRAM, but no restriction on its OUTPUT (unlike, for example, Terragen). And that he can do. Skyboxes made with it CAN be included under the GPL with Nexuiz, as long as source of the skyboxes (if applicable) is included.

[Alien]

Firstly, I meant commercial use or not shouldn't be considered in an OSS license and shouldn't be part of it. Secondly, I have never asked to change Nexuiz license cause I know it's not possible. I was just identifying problems with GPL license model because of mike's request.

Augenkrebs was great deal. Both with eyecancer they were bought by one dadaism collector for $300 each. Especially, he liked free software song. Amazing sound for your ears, he said.

Now considering selling redstarrepublic for one "soviet power supreme" guy. Might get even more.