 | | Numbers Report - 5 July 2004
|
|
Stats for Unofficial Files 169 certified files. 141 files need admin review. 460 files need more votes. 440 have uncertified subfiles. 212 held files. Total Files: 1,422 Comparison with Prev. Report: 2004-07-05: 169 / 141 / 460 / 440 / 212 (1,422) (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
It has been a full year since the creation of the LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC). Nominations are now open, elections will be held July 15. The LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) is responsible for maintaining semi-regular internal discussions (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Variants of 4.5v train motors
|
|
(...) I just checked my motor cases. The Type I motor cases and Type 2 motor cases are NOT interchangable. To update a Type I motor to a Type II motor you need a Type II top case, a Type II bottom case and a Type II gearbox. (The gearbox is the (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Variants of 4.5v train motors
|
|
(...) The cases were also sold separately: (URL) Set 1215 which was only the lower half of a Type II housing. It allowed a user to change a Type I motor (an earlier version without the hole) into the updated Type II (with the centre hole). HTH, (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Variants of 4.5v train motors
|
|
(...) The Type I motor (x564c01) supports both the old style power pickup brick with the plugs at the front (URL) as well as the new style power pickup brick with the plugs at the rear. (URL) The Type II motor (x581c01) supports only the new style (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Variants of 4.5v train motors
|
|
(...) The actual motors (both 12V and 4.5V) were sold seperately as replacement packs, so users can screw open the case and replace the motor (either replacing a broken motor or replace a 4.5V motor with a 12V motor or vice versa). (URL) 12V (peeron (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Variants of 4.5v train motors
|
|
(...) Yes, including case is good. As Niels indicated, the 4 x 12 x 3 1/3 versions are openable with a screwdriver, allowing the actual motors to be replaced, so I think the term "Shortcut" is correct. The 4 x 12 x 4 version is glued, so I'll change (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Variants of 4.5v train motors
|
|
(...) I'm confused. Are these parts generally openable - are the actual motors removeable (by the average user)? If they are removeable, then the (shortcut) names should include "case", since they aren't actually the motor. If the motors are not (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Variants of 4.5v train motors
|
|
<SNIP> Thanks Niels for taking the time to research this. I have updated the part names based on this information - to remove the voltage designation and correct the dimensions. Regarding your comment "The parts look good, I only miss metal (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Parts Tracker Page Style Updated
|
|
I've (finally) gone through the Parts Tracker pages, and updated the style to more closely resemble the page layout on the rest of ldraw.org. Please let me know if you find something I missed - or messed up! (URL) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Variants of 4.5v train motors
|
|
(...) I have checked my collection of train motors (which has reached an amount of 9), including all three mentioned variants. (Please note that I have changed the order of the quoted lists from Chris' message) (...) Got this one in blue, with a (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Variants of 4.5v train motors
|
|
Hi We have a collection of 4.5V train motors on the LDraw Parts Tracker, and I'd like some help sorting out the variants of this part. On the PT right now we have x579c01 (by Michael Heidemann) - (URL) - this is the 4x12x4 version x581c01 (by (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Mac Brick CAD 2.3b2 (critical bug)
|
|
Following my release of MBC 2.3b2 the other day, I've been notified of a critical crash bug in the editor, where inserting parts will cause the application to crash. I've now posted an update Mac Brick CAD 2.3b3 that fixes this. If you have (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
I should point out that priority and override are features of GLIDE and are not explicitly specified in the format. (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
(...) I have tried to accommodate these sorts of behaviours in two ways: Priority and override. If two parts have different behaviours like a "dot" and a "Brick" the one that is moved to form the connection is the one that takes priority. If you (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE.
|
|
(...) Not just yet please... I’d like to get clicking working first before GLIDE gets announced to the world at large. Unfortunately experience tells me that my time estimates on programming are always a bit optimistic. I "think" I will be able to (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Primitive Generator program update
|
|
(...) I have been doing a little bit of work on the calculator. It is really overdue for a major overhaul. I was trying to impliment some other additions that have not worked out very well so far. (...) have you tried Ctrl+ins=copy, Shift+Ins=Paste, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Primitive Generator program update
|
|
(...) ok. (...) Might need to job parts reviewers memories to this detail. (maybe this post will) (...) I have uploaded the update to the webpage; (URL) me know if that is any better, and if I caused any other bugs. I did not spend much time (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
(...) Long-term, making connection data a part of the library would be awesome. Short-term, getting a working implementation should be the focus. Dan (Bennett) - would you like some publicity for GLIDE and click authors on LDraw.org? I can't spare (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
(...) Note also that a 1x4 brick can be attached to a 2x4 brick anywhere on about 70-80 degree angle if only attached by the end stud - its only the other studs hitting the sides that restrict it. ROSCO (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
I guess I'm thinking about this differently. It's not that the individual studs on the brick don't allow other mating angles. (IE you can place a 1 x 6 technic plate with rounded ends on any single stud at some funcky angles) It's the combination of (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
(...) I really like the way the .dat format reuses geometry e.g. stud.dat. I think the clicking format should be able to do the same thing. I imagine that would be quite a bit more difficult to reuse if the clicking info was in the dat files. (...) (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
(...) I do indeed think it would be undesirable. As we all know Stud.dat gets used every ware. There are a fair few instances were the clicking behaviours of two bricks would be different even though they are both referencing the same stud.dat file (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
(...) I agree, but in the short term, I think seperate files may be simpler. (...) I thought so too, but the format document (way at the bottom) implies that this might be undesirable. I'm not sure I understand why, though : ( (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: LDBoxer - Next Step and My Datsville Plans
|
|
(...) (snip) (...) I *am* working on it, though slowly :-( The idea is that you can specify any number of part directories, e.g.: <MODELDIR> <LDRAWDIR>\P <LDRAWDIR>\Boxer <LDRAWDIR>\Boxer\B <LDRAWDIR>\Boxer\B\A <LDRAWDIR>\Boxer\BB <LDRAWDIR>\PARTS (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
(...) There's a difference between supporting POV inline (which is not controlled in the community) and supporting LCD info (which could be integrated into the DAT format). I'd like to see programs support both options - both as an external .lcd (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
The it would be slick to have the LCD info in the dat file, but it might complicate issues being dicussed by the Ldraw committee : ( It seems that pov style includes aren't allowd in official files either so maybe keeping it seperate for a while (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
(...) inline in a valid DAT file? Perhaps make all the lines start with a "0 LCD" before anything else? Then, when reading a DAT file, a program can recognize and parse LCD info, in addition to looking for the .lcd file. Does that make sense? Do you (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw based editor... GLIDE. Click authors required.
|
|
Hi Glide has been on hold now for about a month but its back in development. You can look forward to clicking bricks in about two to three weeks. Once I have the system implemented is there anyone out there who would be prepared to start writing (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.lcd, lugnet.cad.dat.parts)
|
| |
| | Re: Mac Brick CAD 2.3b2
|
|
(...) Thanks for getting this out for us, Andrew! Even though the URL above doesn't work I was able to grab it and am now happily using it! (It should read mbc.html at the end I believe...) Greetz, Anton (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Re: LDBoxer - Next Step and My Datsville Plans
|
|
(...) Well, I tried to pull you into the discussion at least twice, by mentioning your boxer subdirectories, but no luck. (URL) think some sort of consensus *was* reached and Lars was working on some reference code to handle it. But I have to admit, (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Primitive Generator program update
|
|
(...) Just for the record, this is set out in the BFC standard, (URL). In the section "Parts Library Guidelines", it is stated: (...) Interesting side note: this section also says: (...) Which means we should be slapping 0 BFC NOCERTIFY tags on all (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDBoxer - Next Step and My Datsville Plans
|
|
(...) That's not a bad idea, but the advantage of messing up the PARTS\ folder is that no extra adjustment or setup will be required. (...) "121 Messages in This Thread" - It's very hard for anyone who did not participate in the discussion to find (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDBoxer - Next Step and My Datsville Plans
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tore Eriksson wrote: [Lot of snippage] (...) hi tore, with the release of MLCad 3.10 there are now at least two progs who support custom folders. instead of messing up my PARTS\ and P\ folder I wish I could define something like (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Primitive Generator program update
|
|
(...) hi paul, could you on the fly have also a look at your calculator? I would appriciate very much if you could add the Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V and Ctrl+X shortkeys and fix the behavior of the fields when deleting all numbers, esp. with the backspace key. (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Primitive Generator program update
|
|
(...) Ok, I will look into that. Thanks, Paul (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Primitive Generator program update
|
|
(...) I can do that. Now why didn't I know that CCW was the standard winding? Maybe the 2x4 didn't hit hard enough? ;) Paul (20 years ago, 20-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Mac Brick CAD 2.3b2
|
|
Just a quick note, I've placed MBC 2.3b2 on my .mac site (URL) is only a minor fix update, * Improvements to the render engine * Bug fix for the display of .mpd files * The Imperial Star Destroyer will render about 2 seconds quicker on my system (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.mac)
|
| |
| | Re: Primitive Generator program update
|
|
(...) One bug I've found so far: When I enter a value in the size (radius) box, the filename of the generated part does not use this value. When I use the up/down buttons, the filename is correct. For a large radius it is more convenient to enter (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Primitive Generator program update
|
|
(...) Can you set the BFC so the default winding is CCW? That is the standard winding for primitives in the part library. Steve (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Primitive Generator program update
|
|
Does anyone have any errors or things that need fixing for the next release of the primitive generator. So far the only thing I have planned to do is making the remove leading zeros (built in function) become an option in the options menu. This will (...) (20 years ago, 17-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw color conversions
|
|
(...) Tore, Is this the kind of output you are looking for? (URL) link will probably wrap) That's just some of the info from my Color Tree pages: (URL) me know what you need, or how you need it presented. I'd be glad to help in any way I can. HTH, (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Questions On ldconfig.ldr (Was: colours.txt -> LDraw-org Official Part Updates!)
|
|
(...) Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. And the database should be text-based, space-delimited, available offline to all softwares that may need the info - and udpated regulary. In other words: in the new, improved ldconfig.ldr! :) /Tore (20 years ago, 16-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Questions On ldconfig.ldr (Was: colours.txt -> LDraw-org Official Part Updates!)
|
|
(...) A = alpha (transparency) DR, DG, DB, DA = dithered RGB,A. If RGB = D(RGB), then the color is solid. If DA=0, the color is transparent. Otherwise, the color is dithered and/or translucent. (...) Actually, that kind of information should be set (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) That depends on the license on the LDraw Parts Library and the LDraw file for the model/scene. (...) Exactly. (...) But since the _rendering_ of the DAT file _is_ a derivative work of the LDraw Parts Library, distributing the rendering may (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) If anybody has copyright to a _part_, it must by default be LEGO. But the copyright to a rendering of a part in one or a number of LDraw files is held jointly by all the involved parties (ignoring the difficult question of exactly how small (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I agree. I just don't think we've come up with a better solution yet. Hopefully someone clever will spot the one we've missed so far! The problem with one library is that, to be fair, it sort of feels like we can't just wing it and say all the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
What follows are my opinions, not vetted with the rest of the committee... (...) Yes. Personally I strongly agree that there ought to be baseline never to be changed conditions.. and that they ought to be named off. (note: that conflicts with using (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I'm not philosophically opposed to an old/new library, but it would be awkward to administer. Especially if we suddenly started restricting ourselves from modifying the uncertified files. We'd start spending a lot of time explaining to people (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, "Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote: [snipped tons] (...) Sorry I'm coming late to this party... At some point in this thread, Larry stated something about 'decoupling' the two licenses. To some (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) How are parts individually copyrighted? Actually, what exactly is a 'part'? Is a shock absorber a single part, or an assembly of several parts? How about a minifig torso (as they exist in lego sets)? If you want to talk about have to copyright (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I can appreciate the idea, but I doubt that you will be able to enforce that through a license for the parts library. Also, it is not always possible to implement a two-way converter between a pair of formats. Jacob (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) The spirit of what I'm trying to get at is this: if someone wants to read LDraw into a proprietary format, shouldn't they also write LDraw? Taking an open format and importing it into a closed format, without a way to write back to the open (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) The GPL does not require re-submission to the original source. (...) You don't have to send the changes back to the maintainers, you only have to make the source of the changes freely available to everyone, you're even allowed to charge a (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) Sorry - my mistake. (...) Ok, yes, that was my point - you can't keep the changes to yourself, you have to publish them, so that they could (in theory) be merged with the original library. (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) You are corrrect. Re-submission is not required. Library changes only need to be published. [snip] (...) Agreed. It is bunch of work for just about everybody involved. However, the result is typically better than if you go off on your own. (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MakePart.c (Was: Baseplate generator program)
|
|
Hi, "Tore Eriksson" <tore.eriksson@mbox3...wipnet.se> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:HywH7z.GLE@lugnet.com... (...) <SNIP> cool I'll give it a try! Thanks a lot, Michael (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) Understood. (...) Agreed. (...) As long as people understand the trade-offs. Adding redistribution restriction clauses is tricky and hard to get right. Frequently people can work around them. (...) It is quite possible, although I doubt that (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | MakePart.c (Was: Baseplate generator program)
|
|
I knew I had it somewhere... If this code snippet can be of any use, anyone is free to use it. Notes: The main() is just an example on how to call the makepart() function. The groove option does not work. There really should be an outputfilename (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Baseplate generator program
|
|
Lester, I would like to include that into MLCad. Adding as a meta command for MLCad I could support this. All I would need is some sort of library I can use. Best way would be a dll, which generates that - or if you do not mind already the source (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) It is my understanding of the GPL that no such re-submission is required. As long as you agree to the GPL terms and give appropriate credit to the original author, you can publish your mods as a separate work (or upgrade) under the GPL. (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) I agree that GPL might not be the right license to use here - I was just using it as an example of how the "extension" problem might be dealt with, as far as the license goes. Of course that we would always want the LDraw format to be the most (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) (For those of you who do not know, GPL=Gnu Public License.) GPL is one strategy. I prefer an innovate over litigate strategy. The GPL is complex and in certain critical areas extremely vague. The GPL attempts to mandate innovation by requiring (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) Wouldn't this problem be solved by the GPL approach, where any modifications made have to be re-submitted to the original library? This way, yes, you can make your cool changes, and sell them, but you have to send the patches back to the (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) It is very hard to define what commerical vs. non-commercial use is as the examples above demonstrate. One of the best ways to ensure that part authors do not feel "ripped off" is to ensure that the library is alwasys freely (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Actually, redhat stopped shipping free linux (with the exception of Fedora, which isn't supported by Redhat anymore) - if you want to get RHL, you have to pay for it now. So it's not only for the media/documentation/support anymore. (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) 1) That is Red Hat's business model, but not always or exclusively. For example, Red Hat used to make a product named MetroX (I can't remember if it replaces XFree86 or a window manager), and buying a Red Hat CD gave you the right to install (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I think that the analogy "computer program source" is to "compiled executable" as ".dat file" is to "rendered image" is, mostly, valid. In both cases, you take the source, run it through one of many programs (which may indeed give different (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
