 | | | | | | |
| |
|
The 2005-01 LDraw parts update has been now been released.
This update includes 276 files, including 74 new part files, and many more
updated with improvements for Back Face Culling support. Several of the new
files are synonynms for existing parts with new numbers as used by LEGO Digital
Designer. These have been included deliberately to assist with inter-operability
between LDraw and LDD.
Thanks to all the authors and reviewers who contributed to this release, and for
everyone's patience in the 13 months since the last update.
You can preview the new parts in 2005-01 and download the update by going to
<http://www.ldraw.org/library/updates>.
Although we started the process of implementing the LDraw Contributor Agreement
(CA) at the start of 2005, no decision has been made on how to organise the
existing parts library to split the parts covered by the CA from those created
by authors who have failed to respond to our many attempts to contact them in
this regard.
There are still over 100 certified files on the parts tracker
<http://www.ldraw.org/library/tracker/> which were held back from this update
for various reasons - mainly a desire of mine to release groups of related parts
together, and our normal practice of not releasing new primitives until they are
needed for an official part. There are another 200+ files waiting for admin
review, which I can pay more attention to now that this update has been issued.
However, there are almost 800 files in need of further review. I would like to
release the next update early in the new year. I hope that the release of
2005-01 gives reviewers the confidence that the update mechanism is back on
track and encourages you to help me issue 2006-01 closer to the start of the
year than was the case with 2005-01.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Great work! And just in time to give 2005 an update :)
Let's hope 2006 will see more parts. A big thank you to all involved.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.announce, Chris Dee wrote:
> The 2005-01 LDraw parts update has been now been released.
woo-hoo!
Thanks for putting this update together, Chris!
> Although we started the process of implementing the LDraw Contributor Agreement
> (CA) at the start of 2005, no decision has been made on how to organise the
> existing parts library to split the parts covered by the CA from those created
> by authors who have failed to respond to our many attempts to contact them in
> this regard.
Just to be painfully clear on this point, does the update include/exclude non-CA
files? Or did you ignore CA-ness completely?
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.announce, Chris Dee wrote:
> > The 2005-01 LDraw parts update has been now been released.
>
> woo-hoo!
>
> Thanks for putting this update together, Chris!
>
> > Although we started the process of implementing the LDraw Contributor Agreement
> > (CA) at the start of 2005, no decision has been made on how to organise the
> > existing parts library to split the parts covered by the CA from those created
> > by authors who have failed to respond to our many attempts to contact them in
> > this regard.
>
> Just to be painfully clear on this point, does the update include/exclude non-CA
> files? Or did you ignore CA-ness completely?
>
> Steve
I ignored CA-ness completely and there are definitely parts in this update from
authors who have not affirmed the CA - just like there are in the rest of the
official library. There seemed little point holding those back until we divide
the whole library.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > In lugnet.announce, Chris Dee wrote:
> > > The 2005-01 LDraw parts update has been now been released.
> >
> > woo-hoo!
> >
> > Thanks for putting this update together, Chris!
> >
> > > Although we started the process of implementing the LDraw Contributor Agreement
> > > (CA) at the start of 2005, no decision has been made on how to organise the
> > > existing parts library to split the parts covered by the CA from those created
> > > by authors who have failed to respond to our many attempts to contact them in
> > > this regard.
> >
> > Just to be painfully clear on this point, does the update include/exclude non-CA
> > files? Or did you ignore CA-ness completely?
> >
> > Steve
>
> I ignored CA-ness completely and there are definitely parts in this update from
> authors who have not affirmed the CA - just like there are in the rest of the
> official library. There seemed little point holding those back until we divide
> the whole library.
>
> Chris
could the SteerCo please pronounce about the direction it will take on this
topic? is there an author who did explicitly disagree to the CA or are we just
talk about people you couldn't trace back? I for example tried to contact
Steffen and Ronald Scott Moody several times but never got reply. IMHO some
legal advice how ldraw.org should act in this case would be helpful.
BTW there is still Peter Watts on the list of authors who have not yet affirmed
the CA:
http://www.ldraw.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=356
but I know for sure that he has agreed in July after I had contacted him through
fbtb.net. is the list up to date?
bye, w.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Steve Bliss wrote:
> > > In lugnet.announce, Chris Dee wrote:
> > > > The 2005-01 LDraw parts update has been now been released.
> > >
> > > woo-hoo!
> > >
> > > Thanks for putting this update together, Chris!
> > >
> > > > Although we started the process of implementing the LDraw Contributor Agreement
> > > > (CA) at the start of 2005, no decision has been made on how to organise the
> > > > existing parts library to split the parts covered by the CA from those created
> > > > by authors who have failed to respond to our many attempts to contact them in
> > > > this regard.
> > >
> > > Just to be painfully clear on this point, does the update include/exclude non-CA
> > > files? Or did you ignore CA-ness completely?
> > >
> > > Steve
> >
> > I ignored CA-ness completely and there are definitely parts in this update from
> > authors who have not affirmed the CA - just like there are in the rest of the
> > official library. There seemed little point holding those back until we divide
> > the whole library.
> >
> > Chris
>
>
> could the SteerCo please pronounce about the direction it will take on this
> topic? is there an author who did explicitly disagree to the CA or are we just
> talk about people you couldn't trace back? I for example tried to contact
> Steffen and Ronald Scott Moody several times but never got reply. IMHO some
> legal advice how ldraw.org should act in this case would be helpful.
>
> BTW there is still Peter Watts on the list of authors who have not yet affirmed
> the CA:
>
> http://www.ldraw.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=356
>
> but I know for sure that he has agreed in July after I had contacted him through
> fbtb.net. is the list up to date?
>
> bye, w.
No explicit disagrements as far as I know, just non-responders.
Peter Watts (FrozenPea) has not sent an affirmation to the address on the Parts
Tracker home page.
I am taking the wider question up with the rest of the SteerCo.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad, Chris Dee wrote:
[snip-snap]
> > could the SteerCo please pronounce about the direction it will take on this
> > topic? is there an author who did explicitly disagree to the CA or are we just
> > talk about people you couldn't trace back? I for example tried to contact
> > Steffen and Ronald Scott Moody several times but never got reply. IMHO some
> > legal advice how ldraw.org should act in this case would be helpful.
> >
> > BTW there is still Peter Watts on the list of authors who have not yet affirmed
> > the CA:
> >
> > http://www.ldraw.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=356
> >
> > but I know for sure that he has agreed in July after I had contacted him through
> > fbtb.net. is the list up to date?
> >
> > bye, w.
>
> No explicit disagrements as far as I know, just non-responders.
>
> Peter Watts (FrozenPea) has not sent an affirmation to the address on the Parts
> Tracker home page.
please check back with orion. may be he has sent the affirmation to his privat
email 'cos I told peter to contact orion if he had any questions.
> I am taking the wider question up with the rest of the SteerCo.
many thx
> Chris
w.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
> please check back with orion. may be he has sent the affirmation to his privat
> email 'cos I told peter to contact orion if he had any questions.
I got it but I didn't update the list on LDraw.org.
-Orion
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Willy Tschager wrote:
> > please check back with orion. may be he has sent the affirmation to his privat
> > email 'cos I told peter to contact orion if he had any questions.
>
> I got it but I didn't update the list on LDraw.org.
>
> -Orion
It has been updated now, and he has been given PT Submit privileges.
Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > could the SteerCo please pronounce about the direction it will take on this
> > topic? is there an author who did explicitly disagree to the CA or are we just
> > talk about people you couldn't trace back?
>
> No explicit disagrements as far as I know, just non-responders.
Roughly how many parts does this list cover?
Can most of them be (easily) recreated?
--
Dean Earley, Dee (dean@earlsoft.co.uk)
irc: irc://irc.blitzed.org/
web: http://personal.earlsoft.co.uk
phone: +44 (0)780 8369596
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Dean Earley wrote:
> > > could the SteerCo please pronounce about the direction it will take on this
> > > topic? is there an author who did explicitly disagree to the CA or are we just
> > > talk about people you couldn't trace back?
> >
> > No explicit disagrements as far as I know, just non-responders.
>
> Roughly how many parts does this list cover?
We're still sorting it out.
> Can most of them be (easily) recreated?
I think some yes, some no.
Steve
| | | | | | |
