 | | Re: License Intent
|
|
I have to agree (and I know as a non-part author myself other than pathetic attempts which never saw the light of day by point will be held in less regard than those of actual offical part authors') that all parts should be open source. Not that (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Unknown part: Brick 2 x 4 with hole
|
|
Among a lot of 2nd hand lego from the seventies (ca 1971 - 1977, no older bricks) I found a red 2x4 brick with a small hole in the top. The hole looks perfect, so I don't think someone has drilled it in the brick. I could not find any reference (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.general, lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: high res bushlocks?
|
|
(...) I think they are fine the way they are. The basic reason is size. The bushlocks are 20 LDU in diameter. 48-segment primitives are not needed until you get to 80 LDU diameter curves. If you need to put 48-segment primitives with a bushlock, (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts.primitives)
|
| |
| | Re: Looking for Roborider parts
|
|
(...) I believe both of those parts are on the Parts Tracker. Search through the list at (URL) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: ldraw newbie [DAT]
|
|
(...) Do you mean LDraw meta-commands? Or some command system called META? Anyway, you could look at LDAO's set of meta-commands for modelling minifigs. At least as a starting point. It's pretty straight-forward. LDAO's minifig modeller generates (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: ldraw newbie
|
|
(...) It's simple. I'll write at post it this weekend. (...) For cross platform compatibiliy, since I can't write a GUI, I have to parse META commands. Here's an example: 0 LDDPMINIFIGGEN HEAD 3626B 14 45 This would output a minifig with the (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: ldraw newbie
|
|
(...) Yeah, but there are cross platform toolkits for that sort of thing. I was thinking of using your minifig.ini file. I like the extensibility that it offers. I think I could whip up something portable pretty quick if I saw how you parse the ini (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: ldraw newbie
|
|
(...) The vast majority of my work is in Delphi (with a small smattering of C and VB for good measure) As far a portabiliy is concerned, I'm not sure if I can. The way windows are created across platform is fundimentally different. I would have to (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: ldraw newbie
|
|
(...) LOL. Yeah Orion, how about it? :-) What is it written in now? James (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) As a parts author who is likely to go inactive to the future (parts authoring, I've noticed, comes in spurts), I'd like to see the following: License dictates that any future changes need author approval. A majority of authors approving is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) So exactly how would someone release a rendering in complience with open source ? The DAT file associated with the render is not subject to the open source rules (since it is not a derivative work but merely references the library as a tool) (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) That would be great - but are you going to ask them also to distribute the latest copy of the library from their site? Or on any of the media they distribute? Is that something we want? The answer might be yes, but I don't think it should be. (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) (personal thoughts) I think your suggestion could work. I'm very wary of requiring absolute explicit permission for any future changes, though I do want to ensure the authors' wishes are considered in potential future changes. The reason is, (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I'm positive you are much more aware of the names problem than myself and 99% of the total community...... If the names were in numeric form this would not be an issue. As we all know the molds have numbers, sets have numbers.... (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Is a non commercial clause part of the SteerCo's intent? It wasn't mentioned in the initial post or in Larry's update. Could you clarify for me? Discounting the use of rendered parts in commercial products, eg. Larry selling ldraw rendered (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Color Defining Systems Summary?
|
|
(...) The LSC is almost done with the !COLOR meta-statement that should satisfy your need once L3P and MLCad support it. You can read the current draft here: (URL) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Color Defining Systems Summary?
|
|
I think that there are a number of different systems for defining new or custom colors in the large number of LCad programs, right? Most of them are considerate towards original LDraw and other tools that are not supporting that system. But I think (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
I think that we shouldnt say "you cant distribute the library and charge for it" but instead do what e.g. GPL does and allow selling it but with the licence (which includes the right to freely redistribute the covered works) applying to it (so if I (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) While I wouldn't like that, I'm not sure we really need to prevent it. OS software seems to do ok with allowing people to profit - the assumption is that if you use the code to profit, you'll probably make improvents to it, which (under OS (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Would it work if the license says that any future changes need author approval, but have a timeout? If after, say, 30 days of asking for approval (on ldraw, lugnet, and in email) there's no responce, the approval is assumed? Maybe 30 days is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
