 | | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Why would commercial endevours be unacceptable? I can't see the point of drawing the line between commercial and non-commercial use. If someone can figure out a way to make money by adding value to what we've done, more power to them. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:G15GM6.L5C@lugnet.com... (...) Heh...great work so far! I'll comment on points which I think need clarification. (...) Probably so. (...) of (...) We probably need to clarify commercial (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Here's a first stab at a comprehensive contributor/ldraw.org/user license. Geez, I'm glad IANAL. BTW, I think the "redistribution" bits should be reworked to clearly split 'redistributions for the sake of redistributing the library' from (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I'm not sure this is practical. It also may not be enforceable. Someone may 'modify' the library in a way that ldraw.org can't use. For example, they may do a mechanical conversion of the files to a binary format, perhaps in a single file. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Posting notices about ldraw.org (and other website) inaccessability
|
|
(...) It wouldn't work. People reporting anything inaccessable about ldraw.org would crosspost to .cad.dev.org.ldraw. And issues about the ldraw.org website are what the group is for anyway. --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
