License question 2: new node classes

As you know, I’ve been writing wrapper classes for FractalSpline (, so that FractalSpline can be rendered under Panda3D.

The wrapper classes are closely based on panda/src/parametrics/sheetnode and panda/src/parametrics/ropenode, but on the other hand pretty much all of the active code has changed massively.

To what extent do you feel that this file should be copyrighted Hugh Perkins, and to what extent do you feel that this file should be copyrighted Disney Enterprises?

Arguments for copyrighting Hugh Perkins:

  • its substantially modified from the original
  • the Panda3D licence stresses that one should make it very clear which bits of code were contributed/modified by oneself, and not by Disney

Arguments for copyrighting Disney:

  • it’s based originally on sheetnode.cxx and ropenode.cxx, which are both copyrighted Disney

The file in question is: … iew=markup

What it shares with the original file is:

  • original copyright notice and header
  • #includes are basically the same (but they have to be really)
  • function prototypes (again, they have to be really)
  • the code that is commented-out was present in the original file



Long story short, I think the gist of the license is that we’d like people to share their code with us. If the license is interfering with something you’d like to do, then let us know what it is. If what you’re trying to achieve is reasonable, then there’s almost certainly some way to make it happen.

If you have no objection, I think it would be most appropriate to incorporate your changes under the Disney copyright.

The bit in the license about clearly marking your contributions is mainly intended to protect Disney should someone submit a contribution that we don’t like; but if we do think it’s appropriate, there’s no reason we can’t declare it Disney, which really simplifies things in the long run.