 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) All humor aside, is this really a license issue, or a parts tracker policy issue? I know this has been a big issue in the past and I don't want to ignore it, but I'm not sure it is a license issue. It in some ways asks the question of when (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I won't burden steve with work, but two simple checkboxes at the PT's submit page saying: # Be aware that by touching my parts you will have to face the entire italian mafia and end up in nice brand new concrete boots # I'm not Willy, fix them (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I think you might be on to something. What's a good definition of ACTIVE? Some ideas I had: a) did activity x within the last y time periods (x could be any of authored, reviewed, participated in a discussion or other) or b) responded to the (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Question
|
|
(...) Well, my hope is twofold: I don't want the LDraw crew to have to accomodate my project under the official LDraw License, and I don't want to have to restructure my project to accommodate the official LDraw License! I don't expect it to be a (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Question
|
|
(...) This is just me speaking, no official standing in this post, but isn't this process very much like the "clean room reverse engineering" process used to circumvent IP by reinventing from scratch based just on the specs? Also these parts don't (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
