 | | Parts license —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | I'd like to propose an official license for the LDraw parts, I think this is something that has been mentioned before but we didn't get very far in the past. This is important now that there are plans to create am LDraw CD-ROM and I need this (...) (24 years ago, 17-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev) !
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Parts license —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | (...) Sounds interesting. I would rather see it under something like Perl's Artistic License than GPL, though. How do you define "programs"? And the license should be careful not to preclude the possibility of LEGO using or interfacing with the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | "Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G11svz.4IH@lugnet.com... (...) using (...) Something to be considered. I could give the Jessimans' an email soon (I haven't heard from them in a while) and ask them about the parts that James (...) (24 years ago, 17-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) One thing I forgot to add -- In the spirit of open content, I think that any license that comes about ought to at least require that the republisher of the data must give a link to www.ldraw.org so that anyone using the parts or any (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why don't you hold off until we've got a decent parts-contributor-license put together? Although, the last I knew, they got this group via e-mail. So I hope they're reading this now, and can support us on this. Steve (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'd definitely be somewhat concerned about a license which restricted the parts from being used with non-free programs. I'd hate to preclude the possibility of a really awesome commercial program being forced to re-invent the wheel, and (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | (...) TLC won't use our parts directly (interfacing maybe) but even if they want to, they can use the parts as long as they use the unmodified version or publish their changes under our license. Here's a link with several software licenses: (URL) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) What Todd (and I) were commenting on was this (optional) provision: (...) Which is different from your statement above, and would block TLC from using the parts unless their program was free. Before finalizing the licenses, it would be (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | (...) It was a bad idea, please ignore that paragraph. (...) Ok, any lawyers around ? Anyone wants to write a license with all of that fancy legal stuff ? (...) The important thing for the parts is to keep them free to use and people who improve the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) I'm not sure this is practical. It also may not be enforceable. Someone may 'modify' the library in a way that ldraw.org can't use. For example, they may do a mechanical conversion of the files to a binary format, perhaps in a single file. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | | (...) A lot of licenses work that way. Maybe I used the word "publish" wrong, I want to make sure that if someone fixes a bug in a part, he's forced to send his fixes to ldraw.org and allow everyone to use them. (...) That's the case of LeoCAD and (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | "Steve Bliss" <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:G15Fuo.IHw@lugnet.com... (...) Then just use the standard English word for non-gendered (or actually gender inclusive) singular possessive, which happens to be "his." -John Van (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) You know that, and I know that, but some people have a different view... Another approach is to avoid third-person, non-gendered, singular pronouns entirely. Steve (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) Here's a first stab at a comprehensive contributor/ldraw.org/user license. Geez, I'm glad IANAL. BTW, I think the "redistribution" bits should be reworked to clearly split 'redistributions for the sake of redistributing the library' from (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | "Steve Bliss" <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:G15GM6.L5C@lugnet.com... (...) Heh...great work so far! I'll comment on points which I think need clarification. (...) Probably so. (...) of (...) We probably need to clarify commercial (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Why would commercial endevours be unacceptable? I can't see the point of drawing the line between commercial and non-commercial use. If someone can figure out a way to make money by adding value to what we've done, more power to them. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think we should have something saying that if a person updates a .dat file then they must also make the changes available to ldraw.org under this license (and ldraw.org might accept the changes or not). (...) I don't think that's needed, (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | A few suggested changes. IANAL and IANAPA (not a Parts Author). (...) What is the intent here? To allow others to carry on if ldraw.org goes kaput? In that case c/will be revoked/will lapse/. That means that ldraw.org rights to the stuff cease to (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Can we c/paid up/no-charge/? And is there a significant difference between "unrevokable" and non-revokable? (...) Hmm. I can see a few different ways that 'commercial programs' would 'use' the library: 1. They would read the files in order to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) They're different. Paid up means that even if a fee is instituted at some point, the current license holders are covered. No charge doesn't carry that meaning. Paid up is a special term used in this sort of gobbledegook. (...) Yes. One is (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | | (...) LOL! (It's a sad sort of silliness, but still humourous[1].) Totally agree. BTW, from my point of view, as a modelmaker, I wanna be able to use the standard "official" parts and make renderings of them and supply those on webpages as static (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) was (...) but (...) Ack. I just thought of an example of being licensed to distribute but not use. It's an obvious one! Can you think of it too? OK, think hard... spacing so that the answer doesn't show up in the summary ... spacing so that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | | (...) Instead of DAT file wouldn't it be better to use something like "Parts file" ? We might use a different format in the future. (...) I found those 2 contraditory but it might be because english is not my native language. Could you explain it (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Jude Beaudin
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I think 2 means Ldraw.org has the right to chose what to keep and 7 means that the work will become part of the Ldraw.org library (and probably "protected" by the license). Although they are related for sure. Jude (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Not parts, because all files in the library (parts, primitives, subparts, shortcuts, composite parts, component parts) should be covered equally by the terms. But I see your point about avoiding DAT. How about I just remove the DAT? . LIBRARY: (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Paul Gyugyi
|
| | | | | | | | Have you covered the case where a parts author submits a new part for review, but because of errors the part is rejected? I think you should still have ldraw.org retain rights to modify and distribute, so that someone else could clean up the file (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Hmm. My thought was that if ldraw.org rejects the part, there's no further claim (by ldraw.org) on it. I've had part submissions that I've sent back to the author, because of obvious problems, and the author dropped the submission, for various (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Paul Gyugyi
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) By category, probably. On slow disk systems, it may be adventagous to pre-load and cache an entire category of common parts. It also opens to door for people to release a collection of pieces only as a complete set. One might choose to put the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | LDLite extended syntax (was: Re: Parts license) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I forgot to ask: have you added more statements in LDLite 2.0? Are you planning on documenting them? I noticed the documentation of the LDL extensions is gone from the LDLite homepage. Steve (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: LDLite extended syntax (was: Re: Parts license) —Paul Gyugyi
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No, I havn't, but past performance is no indication of future results. :) (...) Oh, I just trimmed down the page because it was too long. That should all still be in the readme files. -gyug (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | Steve: (...) [...] Ok. (...) So far ok. (...) I have a strong dislike for revokable licenses. I think this paragraph should be dropped. (...) Ok. (...) "... no further right to that contribution." (...) Ok. (...) "... license to distribute the work (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) I suggested a reword for it. However I'm not sure your likes and dislikes are germane. The intent of this paragraph is to ensure that if LDraw.org should cease to exist, it is clear what should happen. That is, that the rights should revert (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Oh, one other thing I just thought of. IS this what we want to have happen? Or does the "defunct" Ldraw.org need to "retain" rights in order to preserve them? I dunno. Also, we need to check to make sure that using non-exclusive is sufficient, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Like Larry said, I included item II.5 in order to deal with the case of ldraw.org. I understand how Jacob feels about revokable licenses, but I'm OK with this idea, because ldraw.org is the party which is terminating the license. Maybe it (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hmm. I'm not reading your tone clearly on this. I *assume* you (Larry) would prefer that we not specify $$$ limits on redistribution. My take: I wrote the clause in, because I figured people would want it. But I think freeriders will short (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think a monetary limit on a redistribution charge is better than disallowing fees entirely, which I think is what Jacob wanted. My point is that if it actually costs money to distribute, and you prevent cost recovery, you discourage people (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Are you OK with this, with the intent that if ldraw.org decides to stop publishing, it will be giving up the licenses granted to it by the contributors? (...) Right. (...) Right, with Larry's modification. (...) Sorry, sloppy short-hand. "free (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) The basic question here is too big for a few people to decide; it concerns everyone who includes themselves in 'the group known as ldraw.org'. So this is for everyone: Should ldraw.org restrict redistributions of the parts library? Or should (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | RE: Parts license —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | | | (...) Have we heard a POV on this from the Jessimans? The fact that ldraw.org is sometimes hard to reach for some people mean we should definitely allow mirrors (maybe the mirrors need to have permission?) Also, I think LCAD programmers should be (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I only converted the original library to another format because it gives a much faster rendering and James didn't want other people to redistribute the files in the original format, he wanted to have people download files from his page (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | | | | | Bram Lambrecht skrev i meddelandet ... (...) Is this always possible/wanted? I have made a program (experimental as yet) that converts LDRAW parts to BlockCAD format, but as BC can't use the level of detail that LDRAW gives, I need to go through the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The general POV from the Jessimans is they are trusting us to do what is right/best. I take that to mean they are likely to agree to what we want to do, but we will definitely want to ask for express agreement, once we have a concrete (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | (...) And who would that group be ? Only person who actually do some work directly for ldraw.org or it includes everyone who contributed a part to the library or a program ? (...) I think redistribution is too vague, we should have different (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | "Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:39CA2C31.7D06F3....com.br... (...) concerns (...) I don't have a ton of time to reply to comments on library distribution, but here's a little clarification on what I see as Steve (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | (...) Isn't that a self-answering question? ;) Substitute my statement for 'that group' in your statement, and you get: "And who would (everyone who includes themselves in 'the group known as ldraw.org') be?" I guess we'd have to take a roll-call. I (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Bram Lambrecht
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) And what about people who have written tutorials and tend to answer lots of LDraw related questions...but have no "official" role in the site? --Bram Bram Lambrecht BXL34@po.cwru.edu (URL) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | | "Bram Lambrecht" <BXL34@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message news:MABBIBJJFOJIOHD...wru.edu... (...) of (...) Good one, Bram :-) Serously, these are things to consider. Since it appears some movements are being made to 'package' LCAD more and become more (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | | | | | Steve Bliss skrev i meddelandet ... (...) I would count any part author as _in_ ldraw.org, especially if you are considered _in_ just by voting on a part release... (...) 'Normal' organizations usually include both 'active' and 'passive' members, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Ben Gatrelle
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I consider myself a member of the "LCAD community" in that I use the ldraw program, Steve's LDAO, and the parts ref on LUGNET. I promote the ldraw.org web site, keep intending to submit an entry for the MOTM, believe in the open nature of the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) [snip] I think that your view of ldraw.org should be called 'LCAD community' because it includes people outside ldraw.org, while Tim's view would be the correct definition of ldraw.org. That's the way I see things (but I could be wrong) and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I don't think it's a matter of correct/incorrect/right/wrong. It's a matter of agreeing on the definition for 'ldraw.org'. Or, it's a matter of deciding the parameters for the perimeter of our group, and then deciding on a name for that group. (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I thought there could be both ldraw.org and LCAD, where ldraw.org is a subgroup from the LCAD community. But that's not important now. :) (...) Why not use Lugnet (1) ? We could use it instead of ldraw.org, so we wouldn't need to have any new (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | | "Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:39CFBA54.A0214F....com.br... (...) Yup. (...) I still say that we need a dedicated subgroup of Lugnuts to take care of LCAD - whether it pertains to all of LCAD or to just the people (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | Bog. This particular question is very thorny and very important to get right. NELUG stumbled over "who is in NELUG" a while back. And they're not trying to grant rights to anyone that need to survive their discorporation! US copyright and IP law in (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | | "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G1Awuz.JpB@lugnet.com... (...) instructive. (...) contribution) (...) are (...) form. (...) just (...) granting (...) ought to (...) bother. Yup. (...) borrow (...) I did a search for (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) *Sigh*. That's the answer to the question I didn't want to ask. Before going on with replying to the rest of your post, I want to throw out something for consideration: Would it be possible to write the 'license' so that there's a direct (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Right. But we'd be building cloud castles without it. (...) What if someone declines to accept? What if someone modifies that license slightly? With a structure and an org you have the power to reject. I think this sort of license (IANAL!!!!!) (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) But isn't the GPL a case of GNU throwing out some verbiage and saying, 'OK, here's an example, use it or modify or whatever', and authors/publishers actually copying the license, and putting it on their own work. It's not like GNU is brokering (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I think one of the points of creating GPL was to have a 'brokering party' available for everyone who wants to use it. There's no need to modify anything. Here's an paragraph from the GPL: 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think that would be the best solution. IIRC, GPL doesn't have any organizations mentioned (maybe they say something about the FSF), it's a direct agreement between users and authors. Why don't we simply use GPL or LGPL ? Leonardo (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license) —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Like I (just now) replied to Larry, this situation is a bit different, because ldraw.org/LCAD would also be brokering the agreements between contributors and users. I'm not sure that can be done, without having some recognition (in the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I agree. (...) What does 'conversion to another format' mean? Do you mean converting the ARJ archive to ZIP format? How about converting the ASCII data to EBCDIC? Or doing a straight conversion to a binary format?[1] How about reorganizing the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | | (...) I think all of those examples are simply conversions to other formats, they don't change the contents of the files. This could be added to the 'Definitions' section of the license. (...) From the zlib license: 1. The origin of this software (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) My thoughts: ARJ to ZIP? Simple Conversion ASCII to EBCDIC? Simple Conversion text to binary? Essential change reorganizing the directory structure? Major change posting all the files individually on a webserver? Major change (...) Hmmm. (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Parts license —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) I haven't contributed many parts to the library, so I've been keeping my trap shut throughout all of this, but I'm a little curious about a few points. What would happen if someone were to create a part but for some reason didn't want it to be (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Parts license —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | | (...) Why do you think that way ? If the person was writing a new part then he could use any license he wanted but he's using someone else's work and IMO it's fair to give the original author the same rights that he gave you. A person could for (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Parts license —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Maybe we're talking about two different things. If I find a "defective" part and fix it for my own use, why should I have to publish it? I'm not taking credit for anyone else's work, especially since no one else is using it. That would be like (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Parts license —Pat Mahoney
|
| | | | I am sorry to jump in so late. I am the debian packager of LeoCAD. My general thoughts on this follow. I think it would be best to use a common, existing license rather than add to the license soup if at all possible. Of course, one doesn't want to (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Parts license —Fredrik Glöckner
|
| | | | (...) This is true, however the creation of parts is not merely a mechanical process -- the author does actually go through a creative process to model a part. This is because the author has to choose which details to model and which primitives to (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Parts license —Pat Mahoney
|
| | | | | (...) Ok. I see your point. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Parts license —Pat Mahoney
|
| | | | | (...) Ok. I see your point. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) This is a good point, and I agree with it. I don't know if it has anything to do with copyright or not. (...) As I understand it (and IANAL), 'copyright' applies to the expression of ideas. So you can hold copyright on a file, which prevents (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Parts license —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) I think we have a little latitude, since TYCO, MegaBloks, Block-Men, and others have produced actual bricks of nearly identical dimensions as LEGO. It seems to me that if an actual product can be produced with such close similarity, a virtual (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
