That's the description of the license on the software from http://www.fractint.org/ (requires a FAT32 partition under Windows XP, BTW. You might need another hard drive or a partition resizer to save anything from it).
The following text is probably not as cogent or understandable as just getting the software, opening a DOS window, and entering DEMO or FRACTINT, then pressing F1 when you want to know what the other keys do. Like so many things in your computer, it is not necessary to know a lot of nitty gritty details about how it works to make it work, and it helps. One of the first lessons I had to learn, because I like inversions, is that you cannot invert an inversion.
You might chafe at just about everything going through keys, and if you ever get good at Advanced Paint by Number, then you will appreciate speed from that interface.
I think that there is a copyright on the default parameters for internally defined fractal types (most of them are complications of [Benoit Mandelbrot]'s z=z^2 +c assignment, where zed and "c" are complex numbers on the cartesian plane such that real components *start* at a value of x and imajinary components *start* at a value of y. In other words, both starting points vary according to which part of the plane your screen is mapped to. Fractint lets you zoom, pan, and skew; it _could_ let you apply two kinds of skew and a trapezoid, and currently, all fractal mappings are defined with three points. The loop is applied to all of those starting points, mapped to a screen. Then there is a boundary condition that determines when you expect the point to approach infinity. Fractint colours pixels according to how many times it took the the loop to reach that boundary condition (iterations). There are about six other ways to colour the point, and my favourite is the arctangent it makes with the orijin (makes nice gray scales). Many of my fractals do *not* start on the cartesian plane; I start many of my loops with a function. FWIW, there are two massive qualifications on [fractal] saying in effect "I do not see all those rules!". I am inclined to ignore it, because it seems to encourage taking another look to understand them.
There is one rule for me concerning fractals: Simple rules with _relatively_ complex results. [fractal] is more informative than [chaos theory], which contains a rule about topological mixing that I do not understand, despite the internal pointer.
To answer the question in the subject, I would say yes. The reason for the copyright is so that contributors (at least fifty) would get paid in the event of a rich distributor of either output or the software itself. Last time I checked (about four years ago), Jason Osuch was CEO and concentrating on an X-windows version.
It does sound, too. _______ http://edmc.net/~brewhaha/Fractal_Gallery.HTM
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
That's the description of the license on the software from http://www.fractint.org/ (requires a FAT32 partition under Windows XP, BTW. You might need another hard drive or a partition resizer to save anything from it).
The only things that are copyrighted CC-by-SA are things which are explicitly licensed as CC-by-SA or whose licenses allow relicensing into something like CC-by-SA.
That description allows neither. You're overthinking this.
The following text is probably not as cogent or understandable as just getting the software, opening a DOS window, and entering DEMO or FRACTINT, then pressing F1 when you want to know what the other keys do.
....
Quite.
Copyrighted Freeware should mean that. It's free, but you may not modify and release it, nor copy it, etc. Just a normal Copyright.
-- Alvaro
On 09-02-2009, at 21:50, "Jay Litwyn" brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
That's the description of the license on the software from http://www.fractint.org/ (requires a FAT32 partition under Windows XP, BTW. You might need another hard drive or a partition resizer to save anything from it).
The following text is probably not as cogent or understandable as just getting the software, opening a DOS window, and entering DEMO or FRACTINT, then pressing F1 when you want to know what the other keys do. Like so many things in your computer, it is not necessary to know a lot of nitty gritty details about how it works to make it work, and it helps. One of the first lessons I had to learn, because I like inversions, is that you cannot invert an inversion.
You might chafe at just about everything going through keys, and if you ever get good at Advanced Paint by Number, then you will appreciate speed from that interface.
I think that there is a copyright on the default parameters for internally defined fractal types (most of them are complications of [Benoit Mandelbrot]'s z=z^2 +c assignment, where zed and "c" are complex numbers on the cartesian plane such that real components *start* at a value of x and imajinary components *start* at a value of y. In other words, both starting points vary according to which part of the plane your screen is mapped to. Fractint lets you zoom, pan, and skew; it _could_ let you apply two kinds of skew and a trapezoid, and currently, all fractal mappings are defined with three points. The loop is applied to all of those starting points, mapped to a screen. Then there is a boundary condition that determines when you expect the point to approach infinity. Fractint colours pixels according to how many times it took the the loop to reach that boundary condition (iterations). There are about six other ways to colour the point, and my favourite is the arctangent it makes with the orijin (makes nice gray scales). Many of my fractals do *not* start on the cartesian plane; I start many of my loops with a function. FWIW, there are two massive qualifications on [fractal] saying in effect "I do not see all those rules!". I am inclined to ignore it, because it seems to encourage taking another look to understand them.
There is one rule for me concerning fractals: Simple rules with _relatively_ complex results. [fractal] is more informative than [chaos theory], which contains a rule about topological mixing that I do not understand, despite the internal pointer.
To answer the question in the subject, I would say yes. The reason for the copyright is so that contributors (at least fifty) would get paid in the event of a rich distributor of either output or the software itself. Last time I checked (about four years ago), Jason Osuch was CEO and concentrating on an X-windows version.
It does sound, too. _______ http://edmc.net/~brewhaha/Fractal_Gallery.HTM
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
That's the description of the license on the software from http://www.fractint.org/ (requires a FAT32 partition under Windows XP, BTW. You might need another hard drive or a partition resizer to save anything from it).
The following text is probably not as cogent or understandable as just getting the software, opening a DOS window, and entering DEMO or FRACTINT, then pressing F1 when you want to know what the other keys do. Like so many things in your computer, it is not necessary to know a lot of nitty gritty details about how it works to make it work, and it helps. One of the first lessons I had to learn, because I like inversions, is that you cannot invert an inversion.
You might chafe at just about everything going through keys, and if you ever get good at Advanced Paint by Number, then you will appreciate speed from that interface.
I think that there is a copyright on the default parameters for internally defined fractal types (most of them are complications of [Benoit Mandelbrot]'s z=z^2 +c assignment, where zed and "c" are complex numbers on the cartesian plane such that real components *start* at a value of x and imajinary components *start* at a value of y. In other words, both starting points vary according to which part of the plane your screen is mapped to. Fractint lets you zoom, pan, and skew; it _could_ let you apply two kinds of skew and a trapezoid, and currently, all fractal mappings are defined with three points. The loop is applied to all of those starting points, mapped to a screen. Then there is a boundary condition that determines when you expect the point to approach infinity. Fractint colours pixels according to how many times it took the the loop to reach that boundary condition (iterations). There are about six other ways to colour the point, and my favourite is the arctangent it makes with the orijin (makes nice gray scales). Many of my fractals do *not* start on the cartesian plane; I start many of my loops with a function. FWIW, there are two massive qualifications on [fractal] saying in effect "I do not see all those rules!". I am inclined to ignore it, because it seems to encourage taking another look to understand them.
There is one rule for me concerning fractals: Simple rules with _relatively_ complex results. [fractal] is more informative than [chaos theory], which contains a rule about topological mixing that I do not understand, despite the internal pointer.
To answer the question in the subject, I would say yes. The reason for the copyright is so that contributors (at least fifty) would get paid in the event of a rich distributor of either output or the software itself. Last time I checked (about four years ago), Jason Osuch was CEO and concentrating on an X-windows version.
It does sound, too. _______ http://edmc.net/~brewhaha/Fractal_Gallery.HTM
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they don't pay up", it is not a free license. Free licenses include freedom to use commercially.
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
-- Alvaro
On 16-02-2009, at 2:57, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
That's the description of the license on the software from http://www.fractint.org/ (requires a FAT32 partition under Windows XP, BTW. You might need another hard drive or a partition resizer to save anything from it).
The following text is probably not as cogent or understandable as just getting the software, opening a DOS window, and entering DEMO or FRACTINT, then pressing F1 when you want to know what the other keys do. Like so many things in your computer, it is not necessary to know a lot of nitty gritty details about how it works to make it work, and it helps. One of the first lessons I had to learn, because I like inversions, is that you cannot invert an inversion.
You might chafe at just about everything going through keys, and if you ever get good at Advanced Paint by Number, then you will appreciate speed from that interface.
I think that there is a copyright on the default parameters for internally defined fractal types (most of them are complications of [Benoit Mandelbrot]'s z=z^2 +c assignment, where zed and "c" are complex numbers on the cartesian plane such that real components *start* at a value of x and imajinary components *start* at a value of y. In other words, both starting points vary according to which part of the plane your screen is mapped to. Fractint lets you zoom, pan, and skew; it _could_ let you apply two kinds of skew and a trapezoid, and currently, all fractal mappings are defined with three points. The loop is applied to all of those starting points, mapped to a screen. Then there is a boundary condition that determines when you expect the point to approach infinity. Fractint colours pixels according to how many times it took the the loop to reach that boundary condition (iterations). There are about six other ways to colour the point, and my favourite is the arctangent it makes with the orijin (makes nice gray scales). Many of my fractals do *not* start on the cartesian plane; I start many of my loops with a function. FWIW, there are two massive qualifications on [fractal] saying in effect "I do not see all those rules!". I am inclined to ignore it, because it seems to encourage taking another look to understand them.
There is one rule for me concerning fractals: Simple rules with _relatively_ complex results. [fractal] is more informative than [chaos theory], which contains a rule about topological mixing that I do not understand, despite the internal pointer.
To answer the question in the subject, I would say yes. The reason for the copyright is so that contributors (at least fifty) would get paid in the event of a rich distributor of either output or the software itself. Last time I checked (about four years ago), Jason Osuch was CEO and concentrating on an X-windows version.
It does sound, too. _______ http://edmc.net/~brewhaha/Fractal_Gallery.HTM
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they don't pay up", it is not a free license. Free licenses include freedom to use commercially.
-- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/2/16 Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com:
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/16 Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com:
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/16 Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com:
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre.
And the -ware suffix does show that it is a product.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ware
That article's a bit rubbish, but gives you some idea.
Better is this:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ware
"manufactured goods, goods for sale," O.E. waru ..."
O.E. is Old English.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/16 Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com:
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre.
And the -ware suffix does show that it is a product.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ware
That article's a bit rubbish, but gives you some idea.
Treating "ware" as a suffix is what makes it rubbish as much as anything else. "Ware" is the root noun in the word, and it would be more correct to treat "free-" or "share-" or "soft-" as attributive prefixes.
Ec
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/16 Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com:
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre.
And the -ware suffix does show that it is a product.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ware
That article's a bit rubbish, but gives you some idea.
Treating "ware" as a suffix is what makes it rubbish as much as anything else. "Ware" is the root noun in the word, and it would be more correct to treat "free-" or "share-" or "soft-" as attributive prefixes.
Interesting. I wouldn't disagree, and "ware" (usually plural) is a word in its own right. How would *you* reorganise things relating to "ware" on Wikipedia? There is Ware (disambiguation) and the town. Where do you go from there?
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/2/16 Alvaro García:
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre.
And the -ware suffix does show that it is a product.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ware
That article's a bit rubbish, but gives you some idea.
Treating "ware" as a suffix is what makes it rubbish as much as anything else. "Ware" is the root noun in the word, and it would be more correct to treat "free-" or "share-" or "soft-" as attributive prefixes.
Interesting. I wouldn't disagree, and "ware" (usually plural) is a word in its own right. How would *you* reorganise things relating to "ware" on Wikipedia? There is Ware (disambiguation) and the town. Where do you go from there?
I would remove the hyphen from the entry, and rename the page to [[Ware (commodity)]]. Alternatively, the small town could be moved to [[Ware, England]]. There is also the argument that this all belongs in Wiktionary, where the entry is similarly screwed up, even to the point of suggesting that "ware" is in computer parlance is backformed from "software"
Apart from that the basic ideas are there; they just need to be re-organised.
Ec
Yeah, that was what I meant. That when 'free' is used along with 'ware', it's because it's free (libre).
-- Alvaro
On 16-02-2009, at 10:50, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote: 2009/2/16 Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com:
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre.
-- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, that was what I meant. That when 'free' is used along with 'ware', it's because it's free (libre).
-- Alvaro
You've just contradicted yourself - you were right the first time.
Nathan
Oh Oh Oh sorry!!! Gratis.
That happens to me when I do two things at the same time.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:15, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, that was what I meant. That when 'free' is used along with 'ware', it's because it's free (libre).
-- Alvaro
You've just contradicted yourself - you were right the first time.
Nathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh, but what I mean is that "freeware" means "free (gratis) software", not "free (libre) software"
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:47, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/16 Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com:
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid?
No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/2/16 Alvaro García alvareo@gmail.com:
Oh, but what I mean is that "freeware" means "free (gratis) software", not "free (libre) software"
Indeed, it does.
"Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote in message news:2a34d5a90902152157k5534f173g83c5c67ad6f83d59@mail.gmail.com... regarding http://www.fractint.org/ (...)
If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they don't pay up", it is not a free license. Free licenses include freedom to use commercially.
(...)
Some of the authors of the software provide full contact addresses (e-mail and snail), so I think CC-BY-SA tag applies; if you change it, use it, or want work done on it, then remuneration by donation is *somewhat* optional, and you cannot market the changes, because the people who provided the code did not intend it for sale. If some major distributor picked it up, or someone did a major overhaul to make it run under Windows proper, and then sold it (I suspect that UltraFractal is along those lines, because it contains a bug in the outside=atan view that was in a version of Fractint before ver. 2003), then royalties would come due, and it would be impractical to figure out who is owed how much. So, I am still thinking CC-BY-SA, and at cost or less.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
"Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote in message news:2a34d5a90902152157k5534f173g83c5c67ad6f83d59@mail.gmail.com... regarding http://www.fractint.org/ (...)
If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they don't pay up", it is not a free license. Free licenses include freedom to use commercially.
(...)
Some of the authors of the software provide full contact addresses (e-mail and snail), so I think CC-BY-SA tag applies; if you change it, use it, or want work done on it, then remuneration by donation is *somewhat* optional, and you cannot market the changes, because the people who provided the code did not intend it for sale. If some major distributor picked it up, or someone did a major overhaul to make it run under Windows proper, and then sold it (I suspect that UltraFractal is along those lines, because it contains a bug in the outside=atan view that was in a version of Fractint before ver. 2003), then royalties would come due, and it would be impractical to figure out who is owed how much. So, I am still thinking CC-BY-SA, and at cost or less.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
CC-BY-SA doesn't have or allow mandatory payments. It requires only that you must attribute the original author(s) when redistributing, and may not change the license. You may be thinking of something more like CC-BY-SA-NC, which is not a free license. CC-BY-SA allows commercial use and/or sale without payment, provided that attribution is done and the license is not changed.
"Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote in message news:2a34d5a90902162103lfd8202fmcbe76978816f2c8a@mail.gmail.com...
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Jay Litwyn brewhaha@edmc.net wrote:
"Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote in message news:2a34d5a90902152157k5534f173g83c5c67ad6f83d59@mail.gmail.com... regarding http://www.fractint.org/ (...)
If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they don't pay up", it is not a free license. Free licenses include freedom to use commercially.
(...)
Some of the authors of the software provide full contact addresses (e-mail and snail), so I think CC-BY-SA tag applies; if you change it, use it, or want work done on it, then remuneration by donation is *somewhat* optional, and you cannot market the changes, because the people who provided the code did not intend it for sale. If some major distributor picked it up, or someone did a major overhaul to make it run under Windows proper, and then sold it (I suspect that UltraFractal is along those lines, because it contains a bug in the outside=atan view that was in a version of Fractint before ver. 2003), then royalties would come due, and it would be impractical to figure out who is owed how much. So, I am still thinking CC-BY-SA, and at cost or less.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
CC-BY-SA doesn't have or allow mandatory payments. It requires only that you must attribute the original author(s) when redistributing, and may not change the license. You may be thinking of something more like CC-BY-SA-NC, which is not a free license. CC-BY-SA allows commercial use and/or sale without payment, provided that attribution is done and the license is not changed.
I think that might be the usual use of NC -- to reserve commercial use or get yourself in on it. From Winfract's about box, "WinFract is copyrighted freeware, and may not be distributed for commercial purposes without written permission from the Stone Soup Group. Distribution of Winfract by BBS, network, and software distributors, etc. is encouraged."
CC-BY-SA-NC I am not sure about SA, and I suspect that it is the case. The ND would have to be spelt out, researched, or guessed in a lot of cases. I said that I consider default parameters (and documented parameters) to be copyrighted, and that is idle speculation -- might not be the case. Some parameter sets are copyrighted. Some could do with a better colouring job. Formulas are all over the place, including tight holdings. _______ http://edmc.net/~brewhaha/Fractal_Gallery.HTM