 | | Re: Fiber Optics module
|
|
(...) hmm ... posted on "Sun, 3 Dec 2000 05:40:17 GMT" ... it's never to late to reply ;-) yes, I confirm that the axle hole in 6637.dat - Electric Technic Fiber Optics Element (Official LCad update 99-01) is 2 ldu too high - beside many other (...) (18 years ago, 14-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
|
(...) Here is a newly revised and _proposed_ CAreadme attempting to deal with most of the issues brought up in this post. Please note this has not gone through the SteerCo and is proposed solely by me in an attempt to move on from this issue as (...) (18 years ago, 10-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) Thanks! I enjoy recording models in LDraw after I've made them because the process of methodically disassembling and reassembling them for input is very different from the casual way I initially build them. It's just sort of fun to look at a (...) (18 years ago, 9-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) Ah yes, the trusty helmet mounted flashlight look. Too much glare for me. I prefer the sort of lighting delivered by the mid-afternoon sun, beaming down from high over the left shoulder. But that's a personal preference, I suppose. (...) Nice (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) My light is a directional light pointing in exactly the same direction as the camera. In LDView 3.1, you can actually override this with an undocumented command line option. I hope to have light direction (single directional light) as a new (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) Yeah, your default settings tend to hide certain surface flaws. Your light source (where is it by the way?) and smooth shading are as effective as dim lighting and heavy makeup. Perhaps not the best thing for a parts designer to be using. But (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I'm not sure about the exact text but id state derived works as "containing the original file or visual representation/rendering of..." This happily excludes models (except where they include unofficial parts), but includes all renders of both (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) I have to wonder if I'm partially to blame. Perhaps the part author was using LDView (thumbnail is linked to bigger image, generated by LDView): (URL) Everything looks great there. --Travis (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) I'm wondering if something can't be done for general fits between two or three parabolas (perhaps I'm best to start with one parabolas and two lines). I'm trying to think of things but unfortunately geometry is my weakest branch of (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) If you fix that one, perhaps you can take up the challenge of (URL) the wedge brick>. I don't think we ever solved that one properly for ldraw. Enjoy, Don (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) Hi Don, That problem has bugged me for a while but I didn't realise there was such a simple solution to it. I imagine that something similar can be done where both edges are curves by setting up shells along the double curves. Now I'm off the (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Alternate 6208 B-Wing Escort Fighter
|
|
(...) I like the ship, and especially that you've done it up in LDraw on the Mac. Cool. I'll have to leave any other comments to the starwars and building experts though. What I really like about that particular cad picture is the way it highlights (...) (18 years ago, 8-Feb-07, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.cad.dev, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) There is one aspect that I am a little worried about and it deals with unofficial files... we can make it clear what a model file is (references to parts only) but then we have the problem that it is considered good practise to include (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Yeah, I think the meaning was there, but the language was still a bit unclear. Here's a nice place to look for ideas on how to rework the language. (URL) section on Software is probably the closest match, and I believe this is the key (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) of course with the bit about rendered images still left in... sorry. It's late :) Tim (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Probably... maybe "LDraw.org does not consider LDraw model files (defined as being MPDs or LDR files whose main purpose is creating a model, ultimate discretion lies with the current LDraw SteerCo) to be derivative works of the Parts Library." (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Wouldn't this include modifying/converting...publishing the dat files themselves (a true derivative work)? (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I do think we should try to get it enshrined in the Constitution too. I really doubt it's ever going to be an issue but it should go some way to assuaging people's worries. Tim (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I think that is more workable, since it limits the README to addressing the interpretation of terminology in the license, rather than elaborating/modifying the actual license. Steve (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Anders, I'm sorry to say this but all your comments to me in this thread have been very negative without offering anything positive in return (by way of suggestions for improvements for example). Don made some good points and through debate (...) (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Perhaps people would prefer if we changed that paragraph to something like this in the README Tim ---- LDraw.org is the sole entity responsible for enforcement of the Parts Library copyrights. LDraw.org does not consider rendered images or (...) (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I wouldn't bother quoting the mathematical world at me. I'm well aware of what defines a mathematical proof or disproof. But... since you seem to wish to be pedantic I said what FURTHER point does it bring. The postulate was already disproved (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Apparently with all the legal posturing going on here, people missed this. Seems to me there's no need to fret about anything. Use the tools as you always have and nothing bad will happen. Play on. Allister (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I agree I shouldn't have used that word although it wasn't meant in a particularly offensive manner. Since Don did not seem to take it too badly I didn't apologise for it but had he I would have. And frankly there are more ways to be rude than (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Actually there is. Anton Raves' library comes immediately to mind. Using that you're not using any information from the LDRAW parts, only the placement information in the model file. And his is not the only library of Lego parts in the (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote: [snip-snap] (...) the steerco has considered the option to change the license but considering that we weren't able to track down 18 people last time (URL) (we are still 33 parts behind in the rewrite (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) don, you wouldn't have a model file at all without the parts library. at least not without extreme effort because of the missing visual feedback. I'll give you some codes: CM051P09.dat, HF300P09.dat, CM060P14.dat, CM053P03.dat, CM250P02.dat (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) If you are referring to the non-pursuit section of the readme it is most definitely in accord with the license. As you say a license is only as good as its enforcement but stating a policy of enforcement does not change the license. As an (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I agree. The way the readme puts it is not in accord with what the license requires. Furthermore, because there is a disclaimer in readme that it is not a license, that whole bit can and should be ignored and only the license followed. If (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I agree with the ethical imperative argument. There are plenty of old laws on statute books that no-one follows or expects to follow but are still there. Either way, ethical decisions are made on an individual basis (including the (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
