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.

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.

Because GPL CAN BE SOLD.

Alien wrote: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"

Open source is very unusual on OS X.

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.

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

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

Alien wrote: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.

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.

Alien wrote:Firstly, I meant commercial use or not shouldn't be considered in an OSS license and shouldn't be part of it.

If commercial/selling use was banned it wouldn't be an OSS license. It would be a communist/socialist license. The free-software movement has done more in ten years than the communist/socialist programming "scene" has done in 30.

It's not like one can lock up a recursivly-licensed free-libre software product: the guy who the "evil commercial entity" sells the thing to can just give it away again as intended.

I don't really understand why one would license a small app ment to support a free-opensource project using a license that is less free. Nexuiz is huge, look what you gain from it. Why put your own semi-contribution under a sharewareish license rather than make a true contribution (under the GPL or similar)?

Why the "damn can't let those fsking COMPANIES exploit my work!!!!"(-- yea, not going to happen--) attitude.

There is a burning clear line of demarcation between FL/OSS and freeware/shareware, so don't try to mix them up . That line of demarcation is weather or not an author feels jelaous enough of "The Man" to "make sure" that "The Big Guy" can't profit off the "Little Guy's" work: class struggle/warfare (even if that big bad evil big guy would only profit once before the thing was out in the open again). OSS devs aren't interested in such: FL/OSS is for everyone (both big evil rich people that the communists/socialists hate and the poor people and the communists/socialists aswell). Shareware/freeware/etc is built on the idea of class struggle; of being the "little guy" fighting against "goliath" or "the rich capitalists"... that's what it's whole community is based on.

divVerent wrote:

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.

Such restrictions on works created with programs were demeed void in the US more than a decade ago. Anyone can put whatever they want in their license, but whatever you make with that program is yours and you can license it however you wish.

Alien wrote:I'm even selling your maps for 20$ a copy. You get nothing, cause GPL that permits.

Enjoy your money. I'm not going to get angry if someone else makes some money off the stuff I gave away (my maps). I'm not an artist: I don't get all hurt if someone else is prospering: I don't feel entitled to $$$ from my work, nor to stop others from making $$$ from it.

I know that to gain economically one must usually create or do something at assists others in gaining economically. Creating art does not meet the definition of that. I don't expect to get paid for art nor am I going to fume and stamp my feet if someone else some how gains off the fun I've had making said art.::: I'm not an arteeeste.

Alien: you seem to dislike the idea a free-opensource (as defined by both the OSI and the FSF) software. I suggest you either become a mega-imaginary-property-capitalist or a no-rich-peeps-can-use-my-stuff communist: windows or... I dunno I guess apple, but theyre really part of the first group too... just watch all the cartoons on newgrounds.com and play the nexuiz map "our shining glorious future"... but maybe not with nexuiz... maybe with either unreal 3 (somehow map converted) or... some communist version of a quake engine you rebuilt that no rich people are allowed to use either.

And you're mixing what OpenSource software really is with FSF or OSI definitions. OpenSource by it's name gives you access to code and shouldn't be bothered by anything else. Or forcing the attribution makes the work non-opensource? It can't be gpl'ed, but it is open.

One has full rights not to RELEASE as GPL if one doesn't want. If you want 100% freedom for companies and resellers, release for public domain or wtfpl. There can't be more freedom than this.

tundramagi wrote:

divVerent wrote:

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.

Such restrictions on works created with programs were demeed void in the US more than a decade ago. Anyone can put whatever they want in their license, but whatever you make with that program is yours and you can license it however you wish.

Have a link? Would be interested to find about the EU situation.

Alien wrote:And you're mixing what opensource softwares is and FSF or OSI definitions.

One has full rights not to RELEASE as GPL if one doesn't want. If you want 100% freedom for companies and resellers, release for public domain or wtfpl. There can't be more freedom than this.

The FSF and OSI definitions ARE what free-opensource IS.

What YOU want it to be is some vangaurd communism bullshit where the poor working class triumph over the damned evil profit makers. It IS NOT THAT.

Damn, I wish nexuiz had more Linux users than windows etc: then we'd have more people that understand OSS rather than trying to redefine it into their david-beats-goliath-(and-becomes-new-goliath) worldview.

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

You're not a fan of the freedom to redistribute. You want that to be restriced. Sorry, people far smarter than you have allready thought this stuff up, you can't redefine it, and you can't argue with the success that FL/OSS has had because it has been friendly to BOTH the "little guy" AND to the "big guy (Buisnesss)". The fact that companies are not barred from selling FL/OSS code means they can build products ontop of it, which means there is a reason to support the underlying FL/OSS platform and it's developers... by paying them!

If there was NO freedom to redistribute opensource coders WOULD NOT GET PAID AT ALL! Linus would NOT be payed (you cited linus being paid as a "reason" to can the GPL... yea whatever). The __REASON__ that OSS has FINANCIAL BACKING is because the oss code is NOT restricted to non-commercial use (something that YOU don't agree with) or resale.

Oh and where is the non-commercial avante-guard community... oh no where. Yep, FL/OSS really should follow them!

Ok, then use your free-opensource definition and leave opensourced non gpl compatible code for casual use. You can't define what opensource is cause it's general term. Defining opensource only from FSF or OSI point is the same as defining what OS is from microsoft point of view. They are general terms and therefore can't be defined by some corporations, foundations, initiatives.

Yeah, the companies are not barred from selling, but they don't provide source code either.

Alien wrote:Ok, then use your free-opensource definition and leave opensourced non gpl compatible code for casual use. You can't define what opensource is cause it's general term. Defining opensource only from FSF or OSI point is the same as defining what OS is from microsoft point of view. They are general terms and therefore can't be defined by some corporations, foundations, initiatives.

Why when one is benefiting from true-free-opensource software, and one contributes a piece of software to assist, does one choose not to make their contribution true-free-opensource software aswell?

It's almost as if one thinks that one's contribution is "better" that everyone elses and deserves more "protection" (against those damned evil capitalists making a dime: stealing said dime from the mouth of an african child for shore (FSCKING WALL STREET!!1111)), "protection" that true-free-opensource software doesn't provide.

No one's going to port this tool to linux and windows now for general use by nexuiz mappers, and the tool will not join the nexuiz svn, because no one is going to be interested in working on something that feels that is it "better" that the whole library of things that have been previously contributed to nexuiz... so much so that it (the tool) needs that extra protection so people don't try to sell it to other people.

Now, you have true-free opensource. I doubt it's true or free, but you could use OSS by FSF/OSI definition the same way as using free by FSF/OSI definition.

Why one should be forced to release smth as GPL if he uses GPL products? By the same definition, all products should belong to microsoft if developed on windows.

One can release his code according to his own wishes which GPL does not provide. One could ask to pay for a license to sell and even close the forked code while still giving out the source code to anyone for personal use.

BTW, freedom of speech: http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermai ... 08465.html 4th point.

tundramagi wrote:Why when one is benefiting from true-free-opensource software, and one contributes a piece of software to assist, does one choose not to make their contribution true-free-opensource software aswell?

That is the authors/creators personal reason, you don't need to know it, it can be anything. Stop making your specific view assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

I feel sorry for Clueless Newbie. Yet another thread hijacked.
What happened to the 'not-respond-to-mikes-rants' thing? Nothing good ever happens, have anyone ever 'won' over him anyway made him change his views?
No, so stop this! Or at least open a new thread for this, don't hijack others!

The problem is forcing others to release as he wishes. It does not bother me, but might annoy others. I'm fed up with GNU zealots crying nonsense and know how it can be irritating. You can move away/delete my posts.

It would just be nice.