On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 04:29:11 GMT, Christer Ericson
>I'm also justified in my use of "pimping" because CGAL _is_
>a commercial product. Whether it is provided free of charge
>in some manner to select groups of people, does not change
I really wish it was not encumbered with a commercial license. Yet I'm
quite sure that many of the people asking for assistance here will not
be in the commercial use category. So while it doesn't change the fact
that some must pay, it does affect my feeling about whether it should
be considered pimping.
Quote:>Just, you've been on usenet news long enough and a frequenter
>of this group long enough to know that repeated announcements
>of commercial products has never been welcome here (nor
>anywhere else on news, except for the groups created specifically
>for that purpose).
Yes, true unrelenting commercial spam would destroy the group. (And
I'm not keen on flame wars either.) I've read the charter looking for
guidance on this topic.
| comp.graphics.algorithms is an unmoderated newsgroup
| intended as a forum for the discussion of the algorithms
| used in the process of generating computer graphics. These
| algorithms may be recently proposed in published journals or
| papers, old or previously known algorithms, or hacks used
| incidental to the process of computer graphics. The scope of
| these algorithms may range from an efficient way to multiply
| matrices, all the way to a global illumination method
| incorporating raytracing, radiosity, infinite spectrum
| modeling, and perhaps even mirrored balls and lime jello.
I've also found a link to CGAL there.
"Subject 0.07: Where is all the source?"
Siggraph proceedings are not free, nor jgt, nor the many books often
mentioned. Whenever possible, as with my recent link to the Mirtich
polyhedron moments article, I prefer to cite free online sources. It's
one of the great developments of the Web for the average citizen who
doesn't have access to good free technical libraries. Yet it is just
not practical to censor everything else.
>> But if you have a complaint, you will find at
>> that the manual preface states the following relevant information.
>I fail to see the relevance of your comment, including what is
>relevant about that information. My objection is with Andreas
>Fabri's repeated plugging of his for-sale product, not with the
I quoted from the preface for two reasons. First, you refer to CGAL as
if it were written by Fabri, calling it "his product". That is highly
misleading. I do not even know to what extent Fabri profits from any
licensing. Second, it gives an email address for complaints. Given the
originators of CGAL, I would expect them to take objections seriously.
Ideally code like CGAL would be free as in "free beer". Ideally Fabri
would post discussions of algorithms, not just links to CGAL. Both
those options are beyond my control. Given that a link to CGAL *is* in
the FAQ, what would you suggest the most helpful and least offensive
behavior of Fabri should be?