 | | June MOTM/SOTM Update
|
|
Due to my work schedule and my visit to California for my brother's high school graduation, I couldn't find the time to properly setup the June MOTM/SOTM. Instead of doing a shoddy job, I'm going to cancel the June contests. I apologize for this and (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDBoxer - Next Step and My Datsville Plans
|
|
So far, LDBoxer has replaced all bricks and plates that has both top studs and bottom studs/tubes covered by non-transparent parts. Next step is to eliminiate drawing bottom studs/tubes when only top studs are visible, and vice versa. Many models (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I don't know. I think when something is statically linked you can recover the original code with a disassembler. It's really still there in a different form. There's no way to disassemble a picture into the ldraw code without using the ldraw (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
Just for the record: IANAL (...) Mine. LDraw files are source code (at least according to the definition in the LGPL). And unless you consider rendering a specific kind of compilation, LGPL would not allow you to do anything useful with a parts (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I read the exact same clause and come to exactly the opposite conclusion. My reasoning is that because linking is something you do to code, not LDraw parts; the clause has no bearing to LDraw parts. Is my interpretation right, or (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) From (URL): »However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Questions On ldconfig.ldr (Was: colours.txt -> LDraw-org Official Part Updates!)
|
|
(...) Well the spec is changing so these commands will go away. We (the LSC) are working to get the spec for the color definitions (the !COLOR Meta coomand) finalize by the next parts release. (...) LDView currently uses this file and once we (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Questions On ldconfig.ldr (Was: colours.txt -> LDraw-org Official Part Updates!)
|
|
(...) Oh boy, I've never noticed that one! Must be because of its misleading name and extension. So, what does the A, DR, DG, DB, DA columns stand for? (A is always = 255, so one can wonder what good it does.) It should benifit from some more (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: colours.txt -> LDraw-org Official Part Updates!
|
|
(...) This is what the ldconfig.ldr file is. Look for it the LDraw base dir. -Orion (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | colours.txt -> LDraw-org Official Part Updates!
|
|
(...) Sorry, I just can't find it. Could you give me a direct link? Thanks, /Tore (btw, the file colours.txt is very close to what I have in mind, only that what I think of should not be limited to 80 colours, it should be stored in the LDraw (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Actually I beliee that this is the exact case where the LGPL differes from the GPL. Since the Parts 'library' will only be referecned as a library, I think that (if the LGPL were used on it,) it's license wouldn't pollute the license of the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I doubt it. Going by what I've seen in the Open source programming environment, the file's original author is considered the copyright owner, even after someonelse makes a bug fix or some other tweak. If the change is big enough, (whole new (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Leaving Brand Retail
|
|
As quite a few of you know, I've been working part time at the Woodfield LEGO store since it opened last October. During my time there, I had the joy of seeing many familiar LUGNET faces pop by, and even was able to meet a few new people as well. I (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.people, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Another question: if Joe submits a new file, and later on Jane fixes it, how much IP does Jane really have on the file? More concretely, we're fairly confident the Jessiman's will agree to license all of James' files to the (new) library. Many (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Well, that's been our M.O. so far. So if we continue to distribute files under that umbrella, we won't be in any worse shape than we are now. (...) Yes. Agreed. However, we can (and probably should) start labeling everything that is covered (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
All what follows is my opinion only. (...) authors "give up copyright". Let's not confuse PD with right of redistribution. Let's not confuse giving up copyright with right of redistribution. What I am suggesting is that by posting a part to the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) You are correct here, I should have used the term 'file' or 'work' instead of 'part'. From a copyright standpoint I mean 'work of an author'. (...) There are two ways to looks at this issue. 1) Get permission of all those involved and get them (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) From my recollection (and this is digging back, you made me think here) I went off of the LDraw.exe LICENSE.TXT. The clause I presumed gave permission to publish commercially was: -- USAGE PROVISIONS: Permission is granted to the user to use (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Perhaps the book authors could share some insight on this, because there are many books out there containing renderings. What legal hoops did they jump through in order to publish? Don (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
Steve said: (...) ... And Larry said: (...) Had to look up "tacitly": in a tacit manner; by unexpressed agreement; "they are tacitly expected to work 10 hours a day" And if I understand things correctly, you could argue that, but you'd be wrong :) (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
