Rendering for profit

Message boards : General talk : Rendering for profit
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
bobthevirus

Send message
Joined: 13 Aug 04
Posts: 1
Credit: 8,934
RAC: 0
Message 7629 - Posted: 29 Jan 2008, 2:19:35 UTC - in response to Message 7619.  

There are some other licences that I would seriously consider releasing my works under, including the GPL version 3. Would it be possible to do this if the CC rule was in place?

Maybe there could be a stipulation that the result has to be licenced under the CC licence _as well as_ one of the authors choosing - this way if the result was to be used in a commercial production, at least the communities work would always be availible to them under an acceptable license.
ID: 7629 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Janus
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 04
Posts: 4556
Credit: 2,097,282
RAC: 0
Message 7631 - Posted: 29 Jan 2008, 6:39:29 UTC - in response to Message 7629.  
Last modified: 29 Jan 2008, 6:47:00 UTC

There are some other licences that I would seriously consider releasing my works under, including the GPL version 3. Would it be possible to do this if the CC rule was in place?

I assume that you mean the input file(s) here since I\'m having a hard time applying the fundamental abstracts \"source form\" and \"non-source form\" from the GPL to still images and animations (the rendered output).

You would be free to license your work (the input files) under whatever license you like, or none at all. You are simply also granting BURP the rights to render it as part of the upload process.

That said, if it is not your work - ie. the input is GPL\'ed but you do not also have the copyrights to it; meaning that either you are not the original author or it was created by a group of people - then you need to contact the original author(s), because only he/she/they can grant the additional rights required to render the animation here. This is true regardless of what the license for the rendered output files will be.

\"But how can the output be licensed under a CC license when the input was released under GPL? CC isn\'t GPL compatible...\"
It\'s true that CC isn\'t GPL compatible, but as part of the upload procedure you, the author, also make a release of your work under a \"BURP input file license\" (which allows BURP to distribute and render your work). You are free to do this because you are the author of the work and have the copyrights to it.
Such multilicense scenarios are common in open source communities.

This is of course all still theoretical. Nothing has been decided yet.

[...] has to be licenced under the CC licence [...]

Contrary to the GPL, the CC licenses are a set of licenses rather than a single license.
ID: 7631 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
neumayr

Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 31,789
RAC: 0
Message 7643 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 14:12:35 UTC - in response to Message 7619.  


3) BURP chooses to release the work under a license selected by the author - which could be one of the CC licenses (this is what we are discussing).


Further up Janus suggested using the ShareAlike types of CC licenses. To quote:

\"Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.\"


I don\'t think BURP should be this restricting - after all, BURP just generates the rough renders. There\'s a lot work that goes to a project before rendertime, and there\'s a lot of work that goes into it after. In that sense, I don\'t agree with the notion that, quoting AC:

In a sense, what BURP is controlling really is the work of those who donated cycles.


That ShareAlike clause would dictate the license of all the work that was done in postprocessing.

As I said above, I\'d like the rendered output to be CC Attribution licensed. BURP still would have to be credited, but the artist(s) would still be in control of their work.
ID: 7643 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
AC
Project donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 07
Posts: 121
Credit: 143,874
RAC: 0
Message 7645 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 17:37:51 UTC - in response to Message 7643.  

There\'s a lot work that goes to a project before rendertime, and there\'s a lot of work that goes into it after.


You\'re right -- what about having the output animation permanently available to the public on the BURP site (like it\'s done currently) under a CC license, but allowing the AUTHOR the exclusive right to re-license the work and its derivatives as he/she pleases? Maybe it should be a modified Attribution license for the author so that BURP has to get credited even in the author\'s derivative work, but something like that would allow authors to have full control over their work, whle the work of the BURP community (raw rendered frames) would always be available to the public under a more flexible license. There are certainly some issues there -- if the author does no postprocessing and puts a \"tight\" copyright on the animation, it can\'t really be enforced because a bitwise identical CC version exists, but maybe that would just be the cost of using BURP. *shrug* just thinking out loud.
ID: 7645 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Janus
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 04
Posts: 4556
Credit: 2,097,282
RAC: 0
Message 7650 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 19:13:18 UTC - in response to Message 7645.  
Last modified: 30 Jan 2008, 20:21:03 UTC

Ah, but that is assuming that we only choose one of the CC licenses. My first thought was to let the author choose between any of the CC licenses. Depending on his choice the session will then be rendered on a subset of the machines attached to BURP (those that are \"compatible\" with the selected license).

If an author feels that the CC ShareAlike terms are too strict for the use he intends to make of the output he can just select a CC license without ShareAlike:

  • CC Attribution Non-commercial
  • CC Attribution No Derivative Works
  • CC Attribution



The \"default\" license for rendered output could be the most publicly-distributed-rendering-minded \"CC Attribution Non-commercial ShareAlike\".
Here is my guess at what people would sign up their machines for (this is purely a guess, if we decide to use CC some of the license types may not receive enough volunteers to be used in practice):


  • \"CC Attribution Non-commercial ShareAlike\" 100%(*)
    Anyone may change the rendered output and use it as long as they give proper credits and do not make any money from it.
  • \"CC Attribution Non-commercial No-derivative-works\" 99% (*)
    This option basically means that BURP is the final destination and that the output may not be changed (not by anyone, including the author). Anyone may use the output for non-commercial purposes as long as they give proper credits.
    The soundtrack from \"Elephants Dream\" was released under this license.
  • \"CC Attribution ShareAlike\" 50%
    The output may be used for anything (including commercially) as long as proper credit is given. Any derivative work should also be published under \"CC Attribution ShareAlike\" or similar.
  • \"CC Attribution No-derivative-works\" 40%
    The output may be used commercially, but may not be changed in any way - it should remain exactly as when rendered by BURP. \"Exactly\" means that it may be stored on different media but should be presented in its entirety and proper credits given.
  • \"CC Attribution Non-commercial\" <10% (?)
    As long as the output is not used commercially it will be ok to modify it and produce derivative works based on it. Any derivative works need not use the same license (!). Proper credits.
  • \"CC Attribution\" <10% (?)
    The closest thing you get to \"Public Domain\" (which is the anti-copyright) without actually going there. The output may be used for anything - even commercial purposes - as long as you give proper credits. Any derivative work needs not use the same license.
    Most parts of \"Elephants Dream\" were published under this license.



Licenses marked (*) would be the selected machine default when a user joins BURP. \"CC Attribution Non-commercial ShareAlike\" slightly resembles our current license.
For licenses marked (?) it is hard to judge the popularity. In case something like \"Elephants Dream\" suddenly pops up in that category they will (maybe temporarily) be highly popular.

ID: 7650 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
neumayr

Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 31,789
RAC: 0
Message 7651 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 19:15:45 UTC - in response to Message 7645.  

[...] having the output animation permanently available to the public on the BURP site [...] under a CC license, but allowing the AUTHOR the exclusive right to re-license the work and its derivatives as he/she pleases? Maybe it should be a modified Attribution license for the author so that BURP has to get credited even in the author\'s derivative work, but something like that would allow authors to have full control over their work, whle the work of the BURP community (raw rendered frames) would always be available to the public under a more flexible license.


Disclaimer: I\'m not fluent in legalese, especially not the Dannish flavor (I assume BURP formally operates under Denmark\'s jurisdiction - which uses the version 2.5 license set btw, in case that makes a difference).

If I understand you (and the license) correctly, the author\'s rights you propose would be covered by issueing a CC Attribution license to the author alone.

But what license would the publicly available raw rendered frames be under then?
Sticking to CC licenses, I think Janus\' original suggestion of issueing a Attribution-ShareAlike license would work, allowing changes and of course sharing under the condition of giving credit to BURP and the original author, while keeping it and all it\'s derivatives (except of course the original author\'s) free.

As a compromise for those that aren\'t all too happy with the theoretical possibility of commercial abuse of the project, this public license could also be of the noncommercial flavor, i.e. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike.
ID: 7651 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
neumayr

Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 31,789
RAC: 0
Message 7652 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 19:53:23 UTC - in response to Message 7650.  
Last modified: 30 Jan 2008, 19:54:12 UTC

The \"default\" license for rendered output could be the most opensource-minded \"CC Attribution Non-commercial ShareAlike\".


Maybe it\'s nitpicking, but that\'s even more restrictive than the GPL, which at least allows commercial use in the form of Linux distributions.
Not exactly my idea of \"opensource minded\".

For licenses marked (?) it is hard to judge the popularity. In case something like \"Elephants Dream\" suddenly pops up in that category they will (maybe temporarily) be highly popular.


Which would imply people monitor the submitted sessions...

If your percentage guesses turn out to be correct, all this effort might not make as much of a difference the current situation, concerning the overall usefulness of BURP for anything but blender feature testing.

It goes the other way too by the way, someone who wants to make an animation and maybe use it commercially, or make derivative works (which I think many would want to do) might not like to crunch frames for someone who doesn\'t provide his own hardware for that type of work.
ID: 7652 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Janus
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 04
Posts: 4556
Credit: 2,097,282
RAC: 0
Message 7653 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 20:57:14 UTC - in response to Message 7652.  
Last modified: 30 Jan 2008, 21:23:57 UTC

The \"default\" license for rendered output could be the most opensource-minded \"CC Attribution Non-commercial ShareAlike\".

Not exactly my idea of \"opensource minded\".

Sorry, should have said \"publicly-distributed-rendering-minded\" - long day...
The point being that the default licenses aim for the lowest common denominator - the thing that everyone at the very least can accept to contribute their CPU power to.

If your percentage guesses turn out to be correct, all this effort might not make as much of a difference the current situation, concerning the overall usefulness of BURP for anything but blender feature testing.

As you say it depends entirely on what people select to contribute to. The important thing here being that people actually have a choice.

It goes the other way too by the way, someone who wants to make an animation and maybe use it commercially, or make derivative works (which I think many would want to do) might not like to crunch frames for someone who doesn\'t provide his own hardware for that type of work.

That relation is technically difficult to keep track of. Not only that, enforcing it requires some pretty advanced scheduler checks that are certainly not available at the moment. Even overriding the selection for a single session is hard as the scheduler is today.
Stuff like this would not be available at first (if we decide on CC) but may be added later if there is a desire amongst the community to do so.

what about having the output animation permanently available to the public on the BURP site (like it\'s done currently) under a CC license, but allowing the AUTHOR the exclusive right to re-license the work and its derivatives as he/she pleases?

Forgot to comment on this one.
Although a worthwhile suggestion this is a mess both legally and management-wise. The first problem is that \"exclusive rights to re-license the work\" is in fact what \"copyright\" is. Working with copyright transfers (in some parts of the world transfer of copyright requires written permission from the owner in order to be valid there) or shared copyrights complicates things a lot.
The second problem is that releasing the raw frames on the BURP site under a CC license when the author now has the copyright to it may be a violation of the copyright... this could be fixed by using a custom license along the lines of the input distribution license, but this kind of custom license hell was exactly what we are trying to move away from in this thread.

What you suggest is better captured in \"CC Attribution\", except this would allow anyone (not just the author) to use the output as you describe.


Keep the thoughts comming, it is great to get some feedback on these ideas!
ID: 7653 · Rating: -1 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
neumayr

Send message
Joined: 26 Jan 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 31,789
RAC: 0
Message 7656 - Posted: 30 Jan 2008, 21:49:43 UTC - in response to Message 7653.  


Sorry, should have said \"publicly-distributed-rendering-minded\" - long day...
The point being that the default licenses aim for the lowest common denominator - the thing that everyone at the very least can accept to contribute their CPU power to.

Well, this isn\'t some philantropic \'Let\'s Cure Cancer\' type of project. I\'m pretty sure a lot of those that contribute cycles are in it for slightly more self-serving reasons - the chance to render their own work.
I think that this different (from most other distributed computing projects) nature of BURP changes the perspective a little - it\'s not enough to achieve acceptance from those that donate cycles/hardware/mirrors, but also from those that provide the input - who, if satisfied with the conditions, will donate cycles (and maybe money/mirrors) too.

As you say it depends entirely on what people select to contribute to. The important thing here being that people actually have a choice.


That choice complicates things. To keep it fair (render only for those with compatible licenses) complicates the scheduler, creating more overhead, making it more bugprone and harder to maintain.
I\'m not sure that\'s worth it - in my experience at least, the more options a piece of software has, the more they get ignored. And if too many stick to the defaults you proposed, it\'ll be back to being a blender feature testing service.

What you suggest is better captured in \"CC Attribution\", except this would allow anyone (not just the author) to use the output as you describe.


For the author, it could be CC Attribution. But for the freely downloadable content on the Website, a different license, like the suggested Attribution-ShareAlike or Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike might work.

That way, there\'s no need for a transferral of copyright - which is, as you said, legally very hard to do (some jurisdictions don\'t even provide the equivalent to the US copyright-law - and that is what what we\'re talking about, right?).

ID: 7656 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Bob

Send message
Joined: 22 Feb 08
Posts: 5
Credit: 61,245
RAC: 0
Message 7845 - Posted: 26 Feb 2008, 22:51:13 UTC

As a new member, I\'d like to give my comment on this.

I am quite open to rendering commercial projects on BURP.

As has been stated earlier, the nature of BURP will restrict most commercial participation. As well, if they are treated like any member, then I welcome their help on rendering or funding the rest of our projects.
ID: 7845 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
GNULancer

Send message
Joined: 5 Mar 08
Posts: 1
Credit: 4,834
RAC: 0
Message 8280 - Posted: 28 Apr 2008, 1:42:24 UTC

I see BURP as a purely technical platform for distributed rendering that people use to share their resources and accumulate \'virtual GHz\'. I consider any usage censorship/filtering absolutely unacceptable since it is the user\'s choice what to do about their \'BURP bucks\'.
My Linux kernel doesn\'t dictate what I should and shouldn\'t do, right? So the project administrator needs to determine, whether this project is a technical one or it is a club of some kind. Because I for instance thought that I will be able to use my accumulated points for work at some point in future. Now I accidentally discovered that there are some *rules* governing what I can and can\'t do. I appreciate the fact that BURP and BOINC developers put in their time and effort without me having to pay them, but this doesn\'t automatically mean I want their software/platform to control my actions.
ID: 8280 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
noderaser
Project donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 06
Posts: 515
Credit: 1,567,501
RAC: 0
Message 8284 - Posted: 29 Apr 2008, 7:03:59 UTC

BURP is not quite so cut and dry like software; it\'s a collection of volunteers and developers donating their time and resources to complete a task. While it is ultimately Janus\' decision to allow a session to be rendered on the BURP system or not, it\'s ultimately the volunteers who will decide whether the output of the project is worthwhile, and will add or subtract their resources accordingly.

I think the entire point of the discussion about commercial rendering, is to figure out what the community is comfortable with using its resources for, and thus ensure the long-term success of BURP.
Click here to see My Detailed BOINC Stats
ID: 8284 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Istvan Burbank
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 08
Posts: 312
Credit: 58,920
RAC: 0
Message 8787 - Posted: 26 Oct 2008, 12:37:21 UTC

I\'m posting to an old thread I know, but the issue still stands. I keep hearing that commercial companies would have a problem. Well that is probably true because they have allot to loose, but what if it was made clear to them why it is good. for example for a commercial, more people see the commercial, if people open and play with the files that is more exposure, and open source inherently has the ability to show stuff to more people.... what the marketing department made the commercial for in the first place.

My second point is that some people would not want to render commercial sessions, and I am on the verge, I wouldn\'t mind if it happened, but I\'m not all pro-commercial either. My take is that it is good for BURP, because when it lets more people join that is a bigger community, and that means more cpu\'s to use. A requirement might be to put the word out there, some people might find burp this way, or just come and poke around.

to wrap up what I have said, why does a project have to be closed because it is commercial? what is lost by the company, and used correctly BURP could benefit, which helps all of us who want to render on burp. Janus pointed out that requiring payments would be a pain, but there are other forms of good-ness than money. If for example, there were ads on commercial pages, I had a post which hasn\'t been responded to yet that basically said that I wouldn\'t mind well placed ads that were for the benefit of burp because having an ad on the side of the page where it doesn\'t make the page less usable is bad, but is far outweighed by the knowledge that the service which we all love so much is being nurtured by it. Me looking at the pages would be benefiting burp, in the long run with money, but not from my pocket. A commercial project that could draw views that could produce ad revenue, which helps burp, which helps you, and all the while keeping it all open source. The big issue I have is that burp is a hobbyist\'s community as some of you have stated, but in the end if we get what we came for (in my case an open, easy matured, community oriented project) not at the expense of burp, that could be viewed not as your CPU cycles helping another company but helping burp.

at this point in my rant I\'m sure that nobody has made it this far, but I just thought I\'d share what I have to say. as a side note I would suggest that the issue I brought up before with the sleeping (\'zzz\') sessions and the priority of sessions (1 or 1000 SCS on the upload page) could be resolved with this in mind, either they pay more for low priority and green/red z\'s or something depending on the urgency of their render and what the community has to say.

~Istvan.
ID: 8787 · Rating: -1 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Janus
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 04
Posts: 4556
Credit: 2,097,282
RAC: 0
Message 8795 - Posted: 27 Oct 2008, 9:00:10 UTC
Last modified: 27 Oct 2008, 9:01:25 UTC

I\'ve spent ages working on the legal issues raised in this thread. It turns out that a number of the ideas (including my own \"Creative Commons for the public and the author\"-idea) will not work due to the way that copyright laws define \"work\" and \"a performance or conversion of a piece of work\".

Basically we are down to 2-3 options. I\'ll write up a slab of text about them when I get a spare moment.
ID: 8795 · Rating: -1 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Istvan Burbank
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 08
Posts: 312
Credit: 58,920
RAC: 0
Message 8882 - Posted: 27 Dec 2008, 13:45:30 UTC

I was thinking that the rendering-clients would need some reason to do a commercial project. What if BURP got the money, and people who opt-in get twice the credit.

Here is my other thought: something commercial, such as a TV ad, common company knoledge is that they own the video and want to controll it. in reality tho, anyone who watches it is watching a commercial: what the company wants. if this is explained, on the upload page, that if you upload a commercial session it can be viewed by anyone which in some cases is a good thing as it is FREE views of an ad for the company, burp might get some uses.

Just another idea, Istvan.
ID: 8882 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
noderaser
Project donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 06
Posts: 515
Credit: 1,567,501
RAC: 0
Message 8898 - Posted: 28 Dec 2008, 1:41:29 UTC

Arbitrarily increasing the credit issued for work would get the project banned from combined stats sites; the idea of a cobblestone is to keep a moderately even playing field between projects. This isn\'t always the case, but extreme examples (like Pirates@Home) are usually not fielded well by the BOINC community.

If you read some of the other posts here, you\'ll notice that this is a particularly touchy subject for some people. Also, Janus has stated that if there were ever to be commercial rendering, it would not be until after the server software has been released out of Beta--we\'re still in Alpha.

So, maybe we should let the subject sleep for a while until the development of the project is closer to release?
Click here to see My Detailed BOINC Stats
ID: 8898 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile DoctorNow
Project donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 05
Posts: 403
Credit: 2,182,867
RAC: 0
Message 8904 - Posted: 28 Dec 2008, 4:58:56 UTC - in response to Message 8898.  

Arbitrarily increasing the credit issued for work would get the project banned from combined stats sites

No, I don\'t think so. No project was ever banned from the stats sites because it only gave out too much credits.
FreeHAL was the only exception where Willy from BOINCstats thought about this, but this was because of a messy validator which is already fixed.
And even MilkyWay wasn\'t excluded while (almost) everyone used Milksops application. The credit earnings during this time were high, but not as high as to get the project stats in a too messy status.

The credits here on BURP are on a very low level, making it one of the dozen other projects in the lower middle field. Even if they would be doubled like Istvan suggested it would set BURP on a higher level, but still not to the ones on top.
Life is Science, and Science rules. To the universe and beyond
Proud member of BOINC@Heidelberg
My BOINC-Stats
ID: 8904 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Janus
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 04
Posts: 4556
Credit: 2,097,282
RAC: 0
Message 8905 - Posted: 28 Dec 2008, 11:49:41 UTC

I think BURP is one of the only projects that use two credit systems at the same time. We have the regular BOINC cobblestones and a seperate system for spendable credit called spendable cobblestones. This gives us the unique ability to award people in spendable cobblestones if they have done something nice (like winning a competition or similar) while keeping the regular BOINC credits hardwired to actual the actual computation contribution provided by the individual participant.
ID: 8905 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile DoctorNow
Project donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 05
Posts: 403
Credit: 2,182,867
RAC: 0
Message 8909 - Posted: 28 Dec 2008, 13:25:57 UTC - in response to Message 8905.  

This gives us the unique ability to award people in spendable cobblestones if they have done something nice (like winning a competition or similar)

Hm, was this feature ever used like that?
Since I\'m here I can\'t remember of a challenge on BURP.
And as far as I see there are no special credits given for people, who made it in the Hall of Fame with their renders (for example)...
Life is Science, and Science rules. To the universe and beyond
Proud member of BOINC@Heidelberg
My BOINC-Stats
ID: 8909 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Istvan Burbank
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 08
Posts: 312
Credit: 58,920
RAC: 0
Message 8910 - Posted: 28 Dec 2008, 14:30:26 UTC

I was thinking less variable credit, more like for each level of render submission (low, high, commercial) clients would get a different number of credits per CPU hour. So a low priority session would be worth X credits per CPU hour, and high would be a little more, and commercial might be twice X or something like that.

Another reason for this is that commercial projects are often time sensitive, so if there were only half the clients in on commercial rendering BURP would loose value to those customers. However if there were some incentive offered more clients would render on commercial projects. If (eventually) BURP was funded by commercial projects it would make a better economy in the long run because more commercial projects, more money for faster servers, web connections etc. and clients would make more SCS which would be good too because it would assist the priority system.

~I realize this is a long way off, but I was reading Janus\' post on what a BETA rewrite is, and so adding in features now to test would fit into that better, Istvan.
ID: 8910 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : General talk : Rendering for profit