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(a)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.