|
|
 | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) 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)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| "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
|
| (...) 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)
| | | | | MLCAD Suggestions
|
| After several weeks of heavy MLCAD use, I offer these suggestions for future versions (or perhaps these features are available and I just haven't found them): Decimals for position: currently if a part's possition contains decimals, pressing one of (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.mlcad)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| 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
|
| 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| 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
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
|
