CAD Development : 5638


CAD / Development / 5638

License - again —Leonardo Zide

Last time we talked about a license for the parts library we couldn't reach an agreement, so here I am again trying to wrap this up. I know this is a boring subject but let's try to reach an agreement. I don't think we need to write a long license, (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Steve Bliss

The only problem is, this license is no use without an Authors/Contributors license to go with it. And I think this is one is *too* brief. Steve (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide

(...) I still couldn't understand what do you call "contributor's license". The way I understand it is that when someone submits a part to the voting process, they are allowing it to be redistributed under the "redistribution license". I don't see (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Steve Bliss

(...) Right, but that's an implied understanding, not an explicit agreement. Basically, there should be a "part submission" page on ldraw.org. One of the features of that page should be a link to a full contributor's agreement. Another necessary (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide

(...) Yes, just like when you go to the Terms of Use page on LUGNET. (...) No, it's not like you're giving away a physical object, you're just allowing it to be redistributed under another license. (...) Ok. (...) As long as users can still use (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Steve Bliss

(...) Right. But it's a non-revokable allowance. You can't change your mind later, and force the removal of your contribution from the library. (...) This point wouldn't affect users. It's telling contributors that they are agreeing to something (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The fact that I accept zlib is pretty irrelevant, really, inasmuch as I am neither a tool author nor a parts author. It DOES matter in that the wrong license happens to hamper my use of the lib, but not as much as what the parts authors think. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —John VanZwieten

"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G58Mzp.JAs@lugnet.com... (...) am (...) wrong (...) vocalism. (...) terms (...) contribute). (...) Perhaps part authors need to do more thinking and talking about this. I must admit (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Frank Filz

(...) Also, you need to make sure printing instructions is covered reasonably. (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Tim Courtney

"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A354E45.2F1C@m...ing.com... (...) And printing instructions for inclusion in a published work for commercial sale. Eg. an idea book with LCAD instructions. -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —John VanZwieten

"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:G5FDDy.LLo@lugnet.com... (...) create a (...) any way (...) (as (...) viewed.) (...) parts (...) such a (...) some VMRL (...) authorship. (...) reasonably. (...) commercial sale. (...) Like I (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide

(...) Someone gave an example about a text that was written with a copyrighted font, I think the same principle applies here. (...) In this case the person is redistributing a part of the library, so he must comply to the license terms. IANAL. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —John VanZwieten

"Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:3A35795E.D2224C....com.br... (...) create a (...) way (...) such a (...) VMRL (...) authorship. (...) The ideal would be to somehow have the author's name associated with the part, (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Frank Filz

(...) I'm not absolutely convinced that it's good to require any program which uses the library to be GPLed, but what I am absolutely convinced is that we don't want to restrict a program which uses a proprietary file format and parts library from (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right. And that's my problem with GPL in a nutshell. It leaks into stuff. Now, we've reasonably outlined how the parts license doesn't leak into stuff like published designs, renderings, instruction sets, etc. But if licensing the parts (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Frank Filz

(...) Sometimes it's scary how in agreement we are... (...) A differentiation which I think would also be valuable to make is a differentiation between any sort of converter program which uses the definition of the parts in the library to create an (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Tim Courtney

"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A36A7C6.2C67@m...ing.com... MAJOR SNIPPAGE: (...) Heh... I kinda like the way that sounds :-) Good ideas, BTW, Frank. -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Erik Olson

(...) Pardon me for jumping into the middle here, but as an application developer, this is my statement on this point: I've put in about a hundred hours into my parts-using app BrickDraw3D. I'm willing to give the program away but not on GPL terms. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —John VanZwieten

"Erik Olson" <olsone@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:G5G03K.E93@lugnet.com... (...) either. (...) developer, (...) I'm (...) somehow a (...) LGPL and (...) (requiring (...) project, (...) I (...) libraries I (...) parts- (...) too. The (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide

(...) If we take that route then I assume that (L)GPL is not going to be used. I think we can also add a clause "other licenses can be negociated with the authors". I also liked the idea of requiring the source code for a conversion program, if the (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Koen Jordens

Why don't you just say: " This product is licensed under the standard Lego Users Computer Aided Design License. For information or/and questions about the license post a message on lugnet.cad.dev." That way you can just wait with actually coming up (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide

(...) Bad idea, you can't use the word "Lego". (...) Someone already asked for it. :) Leonardo (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Koen Jordens

Damn this stuff is is as complicated as politics :( How does one license his program for this license? Then I can replace the "blablablablablablablabla" I have currently standing for a license into this one. Oh yes, I would also like to put a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Frank Filz

(...) Again, care needs to be taken here. If the program is a program which converts the library itself, requiring it to be liberally licensed may be reasonable. A conversion program which just converts a LDraw .DAT to a new format which will use a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide

(...) Agreed. I meant converting the library, not converting a model created with the library. Remember, we can always add a line saying "If you need the library released under a different license, write to ask permission". (...) Yes, maybe (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —John VanZwieten

"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A36D1B3.4287@m...ing.com... (...) This is the perfect example of the line we should draw with regard to converters. There are two main tools which convert an LDraw model to POV-Ray: L2P and (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

RE: License - again —Bram Lambrecht

(...) Actually, L2P uses the LGEO library written by Lutz Uhlman. Lutz also wrote L2P and all the textures that LGEO uses. AFAIK, Anton Raves has no connection with L2P at all. It's difficult to use Anton's parts because not only the coordinate (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —John VanZwieten

"Bram Lambrecht" <bram@cwru.edu> wrote in message news:MABBIBJJFOJIOHD...wru.edu... (...) part in (...) The (...) relied (...) wrote (...) not (...) different. (...) LDraw (...) directly. (...) Thanks for the correction and lists. John Van (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Tim Courtney

In lugnet.cad.dev, Bram Lambrecht writes: [snip] (...) Filip Spacek did the conversion. (...) It would be great if when/if MLCad started allowing plugins, someone wrote a converter to POV which worked directly in MLCad. This would make life a bit (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.mlcad)

Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide

(...) Actually LeoCAD is somewhere between L2P and L3P. When converting a part to POV it searches first in LGEO then if the part does not exist in LGEO (or LGEO is not installed), it creates the part from the LeoCAD library, just like L3P. It's a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Steve Bliss

(...) Yes, definitely. Nicely said. Steve (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) It may be worth to note here that the binary format for LeoCAD falls into the former category. And as Leonardo Zide has said, James Jessiman did allow him to redistribute the transformed parts library independent from the main LDraw (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —John VanZwieten

"Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m3vgsm23c1.fsf@...ldomain... (...) It certainly should be given weight in any discussion of LeoCAD, and might help set precedent. Was giving credit to LDraw and part authors on (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) My only source of information about this is: (URL) haven't found any of the other 100 places where Leonardo Zide has talked about this. Fredrik (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide

(...) James didn't want me to distribute the library in the original format, because he wanted to have the original library available only from his page but after I told him that I was using a modified format he said there were no problems. If you (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Frank Filz

(...) Tim will have to correct us, but I believe that James's family has given Tim permission to continue publishing James's work. This is probably something which should be properly ironed out with the Jessiman's. They will have to decide to what (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Paul Gyugyi

I like the artistic license, but not for a library of parts. The key issue to deal with in the LCAD library is "abandonment". The license must allow active LCAD people to maintain, modify, convert and distribute parts that people author. The (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Erik Olson

(...) Oh, artistic is definitely not the best license to start from for parts. I don't think it achieves anyone's goals in that direction. Artistic is well suited for an application. I'd have to review this thread's history to be aware of the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Steve Bliss

(...) BTW, you're talking about the "contributor's agreement" here, not a user or distribution license. I agree completely. My ideal "contributor's agreement" would be to act like each contributed work existed as two independent entities, which had (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide

(...) In other words, the contributors grant ldraw.org the rights to do whatever they want with the parts. This should be in the parts submission page, along with a button "I have read and accept the terms of the agreement". It has nothing to do (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Erik Olson

(...) I've written some thoughts further down in this thread, but what I know about license details I'll write here (but hasn't this been gone over before?) GPL infects derivative works. LGPL need not. If you want to prohibit commercialization, take (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I thought we were close to having the right mods in a previous draft. (...) In view of the implications contained in *this*: (URL) w.r.t. designing your own custom sets for TLC to manufacture for you... I think it is *extremely* important to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide

(...) When TLG offered me a job, my first task would be to work in that project so I know what this is all about. I signed an NDA when I was in Billund and I can't talk about it but I think I can say that unless they changed their plans, they won't (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Jude Beaudin

In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide writes: <snip> (...) <snip> So did you decide to take the job? Jude (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.people)

Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) That's information you have and we didn't... so I defer, gladly. However I do want to repeat this: (...) Well, I know what *I* prefer anyway. Open source is better than closed source, LDraw format, warts and all, is at least publicly (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree. But it is a sunk cost. Do you still buy vinyl because you have a record player - or did you move to CD as it was better? (dear reader : please go to .debate to discuss vinyl v CD ) Disregarding sunk costs is a basic law of economics. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Just to raise a point, I have both, as both have their place. (...) Great list of attributes. However, they didn't hire Leonardo, for whatever reason, so we may or may not be able to count on them actually happening. (...) I've some (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Scott Arthur

It is a moot point, but I view economics as: “A means by which alternatives may be structured so that a decision may be reached.” Therefore the sunk cost rule is universally applicable. If the conclusion is that the existing CAD set-up is not (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm sorry, I have to agree with you that it is indeed universally applicable, and yet... not actually relevant to the real question. The real question is this: What is the expected benefit of developing and releasing a CAD program - that is in (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Scott Arthur

I hear you clearly now Larry. However, on reflection, I still think the cost of providing a ldraw import ability into CREATOR II (Son of Creator – or is that blasphemy?) will be more than the benefits it would supply to the _public_. You have to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right. Now you're asking the right question. I don't know the answer. (...) True. For instance me. But if a workable royalty scheme and a searchable catalog were introduced, I think I'd be designing like mad and putting one after another up (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —John VanZwieten

"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:G55oJJ.M9@lugnet.com... (...) cost (...) is (...) The "user" base may be small, but the "viewer" base is much larger. How many times have you seen an LDraw'n model and thought, "I have got to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Koen Jordens

Is this about a license for parts-builders or the format of the DAT files ? Personally I think the current DAT file structure is the best there is . Of course one would want higher quality outputs from Povray like the heads i've seen in other (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Pat Mahoney

I will be the debian maintainer of leocad, so this issue is of interest to me. I asked a few questions about the parts library on the debian-legal mailing list. Here are the questions, answers, and my opinions about them. Please note that I mean no (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)

Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Rather than harm, I think we owe you thanks for having dug in a bit to get another perspective! Thanks! (...) I disagree here, as we have seen in some recent instances of differing versions of parts, we can argue that LDraw parts are artistic (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)