Greetings!
I may be coming dangerously close to asking questions which are
already answered in the RenderMan FAQ, including answers which can be
"read between the lines". I apologize if these things have already
been discussed ad nauseam on this newsgroup, or else if they are best
not discussed publicly.
I have in the past been interested in whether the RenderMan Interface
Spec would be a good standard to adopt for a new renderer or modeller.
Previously I came to the conclusion that it was not, given the lawsuit
by Pixar against Exluna and its founders, and the fact that requests
for renderer licenses were being ignored by Pixar. As the FAQ states:
"Most observers interpret this as a definitive end to any view of RI
as anything but a proprietary API for Pixar's products." Of course,
I'm sure many people disagree with this point of view, given the large
number of free and commercial renderers and modellers that sup****t the
RI in one way or another.
Now I see that at some stage Pixar has updated the RISpec3_2.pdf
do***ent from version 3.2 to version 3.2.1. (I'm sorry if this is very
old news to everyone, but I haven't seen much mention of it.) The
visible difference to me is that the "Statement About Pixar's
Copyright and Trademark Rights" on page 214 now no longer requires
that a no-charge license be obtained from Pixar for anyone who wishes
to write a renderer that uses the RI interface.
My first question is: in the opinion of the readers of this newsgroup,
did this change improve the viability of the RI as a public standard,
signaling a change in Pixar's attitude towards it?
To me it seems that there are still dangers for the (non-PRMan) users
of RenderMan:
1. Pixar asserts numerous times in the RI Spec 3.2.1 (On p. i, in the
Preface on p. x, and on p. 214) that the RI Spec may not be copied.
The statement repeated on pp. i and x is, "No part of this publication
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Pixar."
Version 3.2.1 appears to have added the sentence (p. 214), "The
foregoing statements of permission expressly do not include permission
to reproduce the specifications for the RenderMan Interface." This
means that any modeller or renderer following the RI Spec cannot
reproduce the standard governing its use other than to link to Pixar's
online copy of the Spec at
https://renderman.pixar.com/products/rispec/rispe=
c_pdf/RISpec3_2.pdf
=2E Should Pixar decide to take that do***ent off its site, a conforming
program is left completely stranded in terms of do***entation.
2. Pixar can decide to close up subsequent versions of the RI Spec,
making them available only to licensed PRMan users. Is it the case
that this is already happening with the draft version 3.3, or has
Pixar stated that it will become publicly available?
Have requests been made for Pixar open up the standard a bit more, or
are they not interested in doing so?
Also, have there been any attempts to make a more "open" standard in
the same mould as the RI? In the do***ent "Ten Things About NVIDIA
Gelato that May Surprise and Delight You" (http://www.nvidia.com/
object/gelato_ten_things.html), I see the following statements made:
"Gelato=92s APIs are also truly 'open.' The APIs and how they are used,
the header files, and all the example scenes, shaders, and source code
that we ****p with Gelato are covered by the BSD License. With the
exception of the trademarks on the names NVIDIA, Gelato, and Mango,
you are free to use all the header files and examples, copy them,
modify them, redistribute them, and extend them. You can also write,
distribute, or sell the readers and writers and compatible tools,
including renderers."
Do the authors of Gelato envisage it's API as a possible alternative
standard to the RI?
Thanks in advance.
Michael
|
