Description: AutoQ3D Community is an easy, light and fast design and drafting tool to draw 3D models. 3D modeling was never as easy as it is today. You don´t need to be a 3D designer expert to get the best out of AutoQ3D; neither to have any CAD experience to get started with AutoQ3D immediately. If you're looking for an easy way to 3D modeling, this is the solution for you.Last changelog:
AutoQ3D Community v1.40 Grid Snap Bug fixes
AutoQ3D Community v1.39 Bugs Fixed
AutoQ3D Community v1.38 New File format (version 3.0) Array rectangular option Show/Hide Lines and triangles
AutoQ3D v1.36b Alpha masking Bug Fixes
AutoQ3D v1.35 Shade Hide Lines Option Multilanguage support, english and spanish is now available Texture UV, project and spherical coordinates Predefined views options UNDO command added UCS icon added Improve Mean Normals algorithm You can add or change textures without restarting the viewports Set Background Color to Viewport Grip Point Texture, Color and Normal Update all viewports when moving the mouse Revolve command in X/Y/Z/ plane with texture coordinates. Flip triangles command added (Fixed)Revolve Command now close exactly in 360 (Fixed)Polygon command set radious in command line (Fixed)Rotate (Triangles Normals) command bug
rotate3d command bug revolve command bug, the program crash when the user try to revolve only a triangle properties command bug, window mousegrab error in picktexture coordinate window switch command error
Sorry for my bad english.
In italian language the word "free" can be translated in two different ways: gratis and libero.
Beer is "gratis" if no payment is requested; in democratic countries the speech is (or should be) "libero".
In italian we say "software libero" not "sofware gratis" when we speak of "free sofware".
Is perfecly legitimate to ask for a payment for sofware libero.
Admin, please remove this page, the "License: GPL" field cannot be correct as source code isn't available for download and it comes with an closed-source EULA
my 2cent
Stop complaining, start reading!
Nothing needs to be removed, because:
THIS IS NO FAKE!
This article is promoting the "Community Edition", whose source-code IS in fact available under GPL.
The software is available for free download and seems to differ from the full version. I can't tell in which aspects, but as far as I see the full version isn't promoted here and the community-one works fine for me.
I will create a software,
and make it's source code
available to anyone
...for only 1,000,000 dollars
(that's a million).
Are you out of your mind?
If you have to pay for it,
then it means that is not available to anyone,
but only to those who can or want to pay
(whatever the price).
GPL does not mean at all, that you can get software by no money, but freedom to share information,and this is the really important point, not money. If you dont have money that is not the problem of the developer.
you don't understand free software. freedom means that _if you have something_, you are free to change / do with it what you want as long as it remains free.
so if you buy that program, you are free to change it (and so, get the source). but if you don't want to buy it, you cannot claim to get the source from him.
same goes with staroffice, novell linux and so on for years, for example.
You aren´t right at all, ´cause if only ONE buys it, he may distribute it free of charge (and one of the first five will do so) ^^
Just *read* the GPL, it is very interesting! *g
So I think it does not make much sense trying to "force" a donation. =)
he is totally right if he requires money for it. remember: it is free as in free speech, not free as in free beer! if he wants money for his software he wants money. period. if you get this software, then you can redistribute the sourcecode and people get the source for free (as in beer, now).
it's simple. i don't see why this guy is blamed here...
I totally agree with you. How can people expect someone to develop such a complex software without any income? Will he become a plant, and feed himself with light?
hey, what is happening here?
All includes seem to be wrong defined. Is this due to the fact that Windows is the basic platform?
it says '#include ' which can't be found (naturally) in my box using gcc 4.1.
Best regards
Yes, version 1.50 software has the GPL license, if you read the licence, you can obtain the source code too. Then ,you had two options; one is donate to author to obtain the program and second is obtain it from anywhere else, and its legal. So i'm not selling the program, i only want a cooperation of $1 dll(or more :)) per download. Sorry the version 1.50 it's not available right now, because, the sourceforge remove my admin privilegies, for trying to force a donation. Thank you for your interest.
After searching via aMule (eMule for linux) and google YOUR website is the only available download point of the source code. Since you REQUIRE a donation to get the source code so, as far as I'm concerned, you're SELLING it.
Yeah, but that's no problem at all!
As long as he makes available to you BOTH the binary and the source code.
If anybody redistributes the binaries without sources, it is not his fault.
AFAIK that would be a violation of the GPL actually!
And since nobody wants to give paid software away for free it seems like a concept that...just works.
It is not wrong to charge for GPL software. All that is required is that for people who you have distributed the binary to, there must be an option for them to get the source code for the cost of distrbution (i.e., postage and packing, on the internet the cost is negliable and therefore you can't really charge for the source code.)
There is nothing in the GPL that says that you must distribute the source code to absolutely everyone, only that if you distribute the binary to a person, that person must be given access to the sourcecode.
However, there is also nothing stopping the first person who buys the binary from requesting the source code and then putting that source code on the web.
why don't you just sell the download ? That'd resolve the confusion. I am all with you for wanting some kind of retribution for giving access to your work on a GPL basis.
But you shouldn't expect much understanding from the freeloaders fancying themselves as defenders of freedom.
I'm not really with you on this one and it's pretty f*cked up that you call other users freeloaders who estimate theirselves as the defenders of freedom... It's very simple, you want the benefits of GPL you take the duties that come with it. Don't come whining that you need a retribution, if so you should have sticked to windows and its closed software.
And btw, a DONATION is supposed to be based on FREE WILL. Bad karma to you to abuse this great voluntary concept. Forcing people to donate is a practice that goes straight into the idea behind open source.
Best is to have this software removed from KDE apps as it doesn't deserve publicity.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure this is a great program and I don't have any problem with people asking for donations for their work. But there's a line between voluntary donations and obligatory ones. Don't ruin the open source community with bad tactics as the crippled download and the forced donation.
That they removed your admin rights should tell you something. Charging for code makes it not compliant with GPL, very obvious to most. Source MUST be available or it is not in compliance.
Ask for volunteer donation and you can get on with it.
Make a 2nd license which comes with training, support or whatever and sell that version.
The last free version of this app was 1.20
The current release v1.50 is NOT free.
The author has decided to REQUIRE a donation to download. As I see it, REQUIRING a donation is the same as SELLING a program. Since the individual has decided to SELL this program it has no place on kde-apps or sourceforge.
From the program's homepage:
For the new version AutoQ3D v1.50, give a donation to [edit] Link removed [/edit] and send a email to [edit] email address removed [/edit] for the Source Code or WinSetup of the program, and I will send you by email.
AutoQ3D-v1.50source.tar.gz--size 140.5KB
AutoQ3D-v1.50WinSetup--size 2.3MB
Ratings & Comments
26 Comments
Sorry for my bad english. In italian language the word "free" can be translated in two different ways: gratis and libero. Beer is "gratis" if no payment is requested; in democratic countries the speech is (or should be) "libero". In italian we say "software libero" not "sofware gratis" when we speak of "free sofware". Is perfecly legitimate to ask for a payment for sofware libero.
Admin, please remove this page, the "License: GPL" field cannot be correct as source code isn't available for download and it comes with an closed-source EULA my 2cent
Stop complaining, start reading! Nothing needs to be removed, because: THIS IS NO FAKE! This article is promoting the "Community Edition", whose source-code IS in fact available under GPL. The software is available for free download and seems to differ from the full version. I can't tell in which aspects, but as far as I see the full version isn't promoted here and the community-one works fine for me.
1.38 maybe is GPLd, but standard has a "nice" EULA (that looks very much like any other closed source EULA).
I will create a software, and make it's source code available to anyone ...for only 1,000,000 dollars (that's a million). Are you out of your mind? If you have to pay for it, then it means that is not available to anyone, but only to those who can or want to pay (whatever the price).
GPL does not mean at all, that you can get software by no money, but freedom to share information,and this is the really important point, not money. If you dont have money that is not the problem of the developer.
What are you talking about? Is this a joke?
you don't understand free software. freedom means that _if you have something_, you are free to change / do with it what you want as long as it remains free. so if you buy that program, you are free to change it (and so, get the source). but if you don't want to buy it, you cannot claim to get the source from him. same goes with staroffice, novell linux and so on for years, for example.
You aren´t right at all, ´cause if only ONE buys it, he may distribute it free of charge (and one of the first five will do so) ^^ Just *read* the GPL, it is very interesting! *g So I think it does not make much sense trying to "force" a donation. =)
he is totally right if he requires money for it. remember: it is free as in free speech, not free as in free beer! if he wants money for his software he wants money. period. if you get this software, then you can redistribute the sourcecode and people get the source for free (as in beer, now). it's simple. i don't see why this guy is blamed here...
I totally agree with you. How can people expect someone to develop such a complex software without any income? Will he become a plant, and feed himself with light?
hey, what is happening here? All includes seem to be wrong defined. Is this due to the fact that Windows is the basic platform? it says '#include ' which can't be found (naturally) in my box using gcc 4.1. Best regards
Yes, version 1.50 software has the GPL license, if you read the licence, you can obtain the source code too. Then ,you had two options; one is donate to author to obtain the program and second is obtain it from anywhere else, and its legal. So i'm not selling the program, i only want a cooperation of $1 dll(or more :)) per download. Sorry the version 1.50 it's not available right now, because, the sourceforge remove my admin privilegies, for trying to force a donation. Thank you for your interest.
After searching via aMule (eMule for linux) and google YOUR website is the only available download point of the source code. Since you REQUIRE a donation to get the source code so, as far as I'm concerned, you're SELLING it.
Yeah, but that's no problem at all! As long as he makes available to you BOTH the binary and the source code. If anybody redistributes the binaries without sources, it is not his fault. AFAIK that would be a violation of the GPL actually! And since nobody wants to give paid software away for free it seems like a concept that...just works.
It is not wrong to charge for GPL software. All that is required is that for people who you have distributed the binary to, there must be an option for them to get the source code for the cost of distrbution (i.e., postage and packing, on the internet the cost is negliable and therefore you can't really charge for the source code.) There is nothing in the GPL that says that you must distribute the source code to absolutely everyone, only that if you distribute the binary to a person, that person must be given access to the sourcecode. However, there is also nothing stopping the first person who buys the binary from requesting the source code and then putting that source code on the web.
why don't you just sell the download ? That'd resolve the confusion. I am all with you for wanting some kind of retribution for giving access to your work on a GPL basis. But you shouldn't expect much understanding from the freeloaders fancying themselves as defenders of freedom.
I'm not really with you on this one and it's pretty f*cked up that you call other users freeloaders who estimate theirselves as the defenders of freedom... It's very simple, you want the benefits of GPL you take the duties that come with it. Don't come whining that you need a retribution, if so you should have sticked to windows and its closed software. And btw, a DONATION is supposed to be based on FREE WILL. Bad karma to you to abuse this great voluntary concept. Forcing people to donate is a practice that goes straight into the idea behind open source. Best is to have this software removed from KDE apps as it doesn't deserve publicity. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure this is a great program and I don't have any problem with people asking for donations for their work. But there's a line between voluntary donations and obligatory ones. Don't ruin the open source community with bad tactics as the crippled download and the forced donation.
That they removed your admin rights should tell you something. Charging for code makes it not compliant with GPL, very obvious to most. Source MUST be available or it is not in compliance. Ask for volunteer donation and you can get on with it. Make a 2nd license which comes with training, support or whatever and sell that version.
If it is not free then fix the license in the submission. It is still GPL there.
The last free version of this app was 1.20 The current release v1.50 is NOT free. The author has decided to REQUIRE a donation to download. As I see it, REQUIRING a donation is the same as SELLING a program. Since the individual has decided to SELL this program it has no place on kde-apps or sourceforge.
From the program's homepage: For the new version AutoQ3D v1.50, give a donation to [edit] Link removed [/edit] and send a email to [edit] email address removed [/edit] for the Source Code or WinSetup of the program, and I will send you by email. AutoQ3D-v1.50source.tar.gz--size 140.5KB AutoQ3D-v1.50WinSetup--size 2.3MB
Selling program doesn't make it non-free. Free means liberty, not price. If it's still free, you can buy it and distribute it futher.
OK, then you go and BUY the source code for this FREE program and see what happens if you try to redistribute it.
Do you really know what the GPL means???