@Z22I have already been through the attributions that you were ***** about in relation to Coastal scene. Now you seem to be having a poke at the Feathers scene again.
I'm not going to get drawn into an endless cicular debate. You have ***** that I did not provide attributions when actually I did, now you are ***** that the attributions are not where you want them to be.
It is not my problem if you do not read something properly before you start *****. I referred you to the cc license that shadertoy uses by default.
We already covered this:
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
It also states this:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
"In any reasonable manner" being the key point.
I have placed a link at the top of the shader to the URL on shadertoy where the original code was and in doing so anyone can see for themselves that there are no specific restrictions on the original shader. By extension the new code is on the same cc license as shadertoys default here:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en_US
Placing further attributiuons next to the code to which they relate is a perfectly reasonable way to display it especially when the final product has different functionality than the original. Where code comes from multiple authors this is a simple and effective way to make clear exactly who developed what and it also doubles as a record of changes. There are many many other shaders on shadertoy that place their attributions like this, scattered throughout the code so if you still have an issue with this practise please could you take it up with the shadertoy community rather than just me. Nowhere in the cc license does it state that the original header must not be altered or moved, that is something that the author would need to have specified when they released their code.
The original shader had just one "plane" of output on a black background, my version allows for the shader to be called from the scene file to create as many planes as the user wants on a transparent background and thereby allowing for the creation of a foreground and a background around the model. I also adjusted the coordinate system to allow for the positioning of each plane so that I could reduce the number of feathers crossing in front of the models face and also allowed for changes to the number of feathers painted on each plane. That is all to say.... it is not the same shader as that from which it was derived.
You will even find on line 148 of feathers the following:
// Remove alpha wherever the background is black @TheEmu and @Z22
col.a = smoothstep(0.0, 0.01, col.r);
...an attribution to yours and
@TheEmu providing a more elegant piece of code than the "functional but ugly" one that I had written.
You have written quite a lot on this forum about my scenes but as far as I am concerned, this is incorrect:
if there is already an atributiuon you are not supposed to edit it at all. You did, that was the problem
and nor is this:
Previously i have told calgon not to remove the original attribution on shaders
My code might be messy and not follow what others regard as best practise but I have made no attempt to remove fair and reasonable attribution of other peoples work and have complied with the cc license.
I sincerely hope that this is now finally the end of this matter.
