|
|
 | | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) 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: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
| | | | | LDLite extended syntax (was: Re: Parts license)
|
| (...) 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: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
| (...) 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)
|
|
