 | | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Why dont we do what the Free Software Foundation does with the GNU project. Basicly, everyone wanting to contribute code signs something stating that they hand over copyright to GNU. We do the same thing, with gaurantees in the contract that (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) While this is true of the library as a whole, it isn't true of individual files. Even when an author gets a part officially into the library, I believe they are still the owner, and they're certainly the author. --Travis (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE.
|
|
(...) This is only true to a point. As long as you have a reasonably modern video card, its on-board geometry performance is going to far exceed the geometry performance you could get out of the fastest CPU. I don't know how GLIDE does its drawing, (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) There is a lot of misunderstanding about the general topic of copyrights. I strongly recommend that the SteerCo undertake the effort to learn more about copyrights, since copyright law is the fundamental underpinning of all redistribution (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE.
|
|
(...) That's because most of the focus in Grahics HW the past few years has been in texture and shading performance, and *not* in raw polygon drawing that LCAD makes so much use of. We mainly have games to thatnk for that. For the most part (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: Track Designer Registry
|
|
"Cary Clark" <cclark2@nScP.rArM.com> wrote in message news:HxwtDp.uw0@lugnet.com... (...) that (...) in a (...) exactly (...) better (...) program, then (...) in it's current Alpha state is a better track layout tool than TrackDesigner is. But that (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.trains, lugnet.cad, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) That would (as I understand things) be impossible from a legal point of view. (...) Maybe. But that would then require that all the parts authors formally transferred their copyright to LDraw.org. This is possible, but parts authors living in (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) All the individual parts files authors. I.e. you would have to get aproval from each individual parts file author. Jacob (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Yes. Except that "public domain" is a concept that doesn't exist outside USA. (...) If you send Steve Bliss an e-mail, where you tell him that he (as LDraw.org Parts Library Head Honcho) is free to choose which license your parts files are (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE.
|
|
Hi I agree its a shame about the incomplete BFC situation. Currently I use Two-Sided lighting in GLIDE you don't notice the performance hit because most of the processing effort is done by the CPU at the moment. That’s what slows it down rather than (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
