|
|
 | | Re: License - again
|
| I hear you clearly now Larry. However, on reflection, I still think the cost of providing a ldraw import ability into CREATOR II (Son of Creator – or is that blasphemy?) will be more than the benefits it would supply to the _public_. You have to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| I will be the debian maintainer of leocad, so this issue is of interest to me. I asked a few questions about the parts library on the debian-legal mailing list. Here are the questions, answers, and my opinions about them. Please note that I mean no (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) I'm sorry, I have to agree with you that it is indeed universally applicable, and yet... not actually relevant to the real question. The real question is this: What is the expected benefit of developing and releasing a CAD program - that is in (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| It is a moot point, but I view economics as: “A means by which alternatives may be structured so that a decision may be reached.” Therefore the sunk cost rule is universally applicable. If the conclusion is that the existing CAD set-up is not (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Right, but that's an implied understanding, not an explicit agreement. Basically, there should be a "part submission" page on ldraw.org. One of the features of that page should be a link to a full contributor's agreement. Another necessary (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
|
