 | | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I hear you, but I still find it difficult to read posts like Tim's. It's important to me, I just couldn't let it slide. As you say, probably a sign of my age (celebrated my 53:rd birthday yesterday). (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Hi Anders, Please don't get all excited about the word rubbish. I'm OK with it. You and I are from a different generation and apparently "smack talk" is the language of the new generation. This was pretty mild by the new standard, so let's (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) hi anders, the readme is nothing than a human readable version of the legal text (which in the end tells us that lawyers are not human) and it is basically a copy of this: (URL) (the steerco haven't written it), we (the 2006/2007 steerco) (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Now this is more along the lines of what I'd consider a derivative work according to the license, but only if their part file library actually includes ldraw primitive files, or text copied from the parts or primitive files. If they just (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) It's quite condescending to express the view that alternative libraries are created/used just 'in order to avoid writing ...'. All of those alternatives were in existance long before the 'license'. Actually it sounds more like ldraw.org is (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) They provide exactly that. *Counter examples* to your argumentation. If you don't know what to do with a counter example, that's your problem. In the mathematics world, *one* counter example is enough to make a 'proof' invalid. I invalidated (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
I missed this one at first. (...) What kind of language is that for a LDRAW official? Even if hiding behind '(in a personal capacity)'? I deplore this kind of 'argumentation' - you're just expressing your own opinion, and have no right calling the (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I did think of Anton Rave's library and LGEO but there aren't a lot of models which use exclusively parts from LGEO (I have never used Anton's library). Sure you can provide a counter-example and of course LDraw.org has no control over renders (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) This is also not true. BlockCAD has its own part library, not at all connected to the LDRAW library, but BlockCAD *can* save a model in the LDRAW format, thereby making it possible to render a BlockCAD model with the LDRAW compatible programs. (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) This is definitely wrong! There is nothing unique with the LDRAW library. It doesn't have a special place in the universe - it's just another information collection. My BlockCAD program can load *some* LDRAW model files and render a picture (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
