 | | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) It may be worth to note here that the binary format for LeoCAD falls into the former category. And as Leonardo Zide has said, James Jessiman did allow him to redistribute the transformed parts library independent from the main LDraw (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:kuph3tcm65ren3n...4ax.com... (...) bit (...) panel (...) Hehe.. Well given the nature of LCAD, its pretty difficult to select who is going to lead. But on the other side, having a panel of (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
(...) For points made previously in the thread, I think. Basically, I think if our aim is to free users/distributors/developers to use the library however they want, forcing them to release source code is a *big* contradiction of the aim of the (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
(...) The idea of making it different for commercial applications was to allow L3P to continue to be distributed under its current license. Now I see that it's a bad thing and #5 should either be completely removed or required for free applications (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
(...) I only added that because other people requested, I was happy with the initial license. Personally I think that #4 is going to scare people away. (...) It's better, english is not my native language. (...) Ok, it seems that a lot of people (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) In other words, the contributors grant ldraw.org the rights to do whatever they want with the parts. This should be in the parts submission page, along with a button "I have read and accept the terms of the agreement". It has nothing to do (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: POV difference in LDraw?
|
|
(...) I don't think having the POV-Ray source code will help us here. The problem with LDraw vs POV-Ray is that the difference and other constructive geometry functions in POV-Ray use the inside vs outside concept. Ie, a POV-Ray object can have a (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | POV difference in LDraw?
|
|
Is there any way to make something similar to the useful difference function from POV into LDraw? It's far beyond my programming skils, but we've made so many great improvements together so far so I believe that there is hope. Isn't the POV source (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
(...) Seconding Pat Mahoney's questions directed at parts 4 and 5. My own questions: On part 4: I understand the main need for the license is: packaging the parts library with an application for distribution. Question: is the license meant to impose (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
First, koen, I am the one who asked. I would like to package leocad for Debian GNU/Linux, and I cannot [legally] distribute the ldraw parts library with it unless it contains an acceptable license. (...) Why? Say Internet explorer had some sort of (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Keywords Question
|
|
(...) Yes there is. If the news-search wasn't temporarily deactivated, I'd point you to it. Here's a cooked version of the discussion: ===...=== FAQ for CATEGORY and KEYWORDS meta-statements ===...=== Q: What are '0 CATEGORY' and '0 KEYWORDS'? A: (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:lpff3tspjvsl3iu...4ax.com... (...) Agreed. (...) Good point - up until recently I have been against LCAD derivative software for sale, but some of the points made here has changed my (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Actually LeoCAD is somewhere between L2P and L3P. When converting a part to POV it searches first in LGEO then if the part does not exist in LGEO (or LGEO is not installed), it creates the part from the LeoCAD library, just like L3P. It's a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
(...) I like where you're going, mostly. (...) I'd like to not have different terms for commercial and non-commercial applications. I don't see a valid reason for discriminating on the basis of cost. My thinking is this: most LCAD'ish things are (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Yes, definitely. Nicely said. Steve (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) BTW, you're talking about the "contributor's agreement" here, not a user or distribution license. I agree completely. My ideal "contributor's agreement" would be to act like each contributed work existed as two independent entities, which had (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: L3PAO update (v 1.3)
|
|
(...) URL? --Bram Bram Lambrecht bram@cwru.edu (URL) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | L3PAO update (v 1.3)
|
|
When using L3PAO to do the Beretta this week, I noticed a few issues here and there, so I compiled an update. (URL) 1.3 ---...--- Fixed yet another error in the command line generator. If the path to l3p was the same as the path to L3PAO, it was (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Bram Lambrecht writes: [snip] (...) Filip Spacek did the conversion. (...) It would be great if when/if MLCad started allowing plugins, someone wrote a converter to POV which worked directly in MLCad. This would make life a bit (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Bram Lambrecht" <bram@cwru.edu> wrote in message news:MABBIBJJFOJIOHD...wru.edu... (...) part in (...) The (...) relied (...) wrote (...) not (...) different. (...) LDraw (...) directly. (...) Thanks for the correction and lists. John Van (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: License - again
|
|
(...) Actually, L2P uses the LGEO library written by Lutz Uhlman. Lutz also wrote L2P and all the textures that LGEO uses. AFAIK, Anton Raves has no connection with L2P at all. It's difficult to use Anton's parts because not only the coordinate (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A36D1B3.4287@m...ing.com... (...) This is the perfect example of the line we should draw with regard to converters. There are two main tools which convert an LDraw model to POV-Ray: L2P and (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Keywords Question
|
|
Is there a particular thread where the guidelines, if any, of keywords are discussed in depth? Dave! (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
Damn this stuff is is as complicated as politics :( How does one license his program for this license? Then I can replace the "blablablablablablablabla" I have currently standing for a license into this one. Oh yes, I would also like to put a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | License revision 1
|
|
Based on some feedback, here's a revised copy of the license. I hope it addresses more concerns raised here, while keeping it free. Note that paragraph 5 is only for commercial applications, L3P is not subject to it. ---...--- This library is (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Agreed. I meant converting the library, not converting a model created with the library. Remember, we can always add a line saying "If you need the library released under a different license, write to ask permission". (...) Yes, maybe (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Bad idea, you can't use the word "Lego". (...) Someone already asked for it. :) Leonardo (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
When I started using MLCAD/L3P/POV-RAY, I had quite a few issues. - Installation - The existing ldraw.org was pretty good in instructing how to find and install these things. However, I had to wade through a bunch of stuff to figure out that these (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Date for next partsvote?
|
|
Yes - I'm starting to find that almost all my models are using newly posted parts that really should be incorporated into the standard parts release. It would be great to get another one. Carsten Schmitz <casz@gmx.de> wrote in message (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Oh, artistic is definitely not the best license to start from for parts. I don't think it achieves anyone's goals in that direction. Artistic is well suited for an application. I'd have to review this thread's history to be aware of the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Again, care needs to be taken here. If the program is a program which converts the library itself, requiring it to be liberally licensed may be reasonable. A conversion program which just converts a LDraw .DAT to a new format which will use a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
I like the artistic license, but not for a library of parts. The key issue to deal with in the LCAD library is "abandonment". The license must allow active LCAD people to maintain, modify, convert and distribute parts that people author. The (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
Why don't you just say: " This product is licensed under the standard Lego Users Computer Aided Design License. For information or/and questions about the license post a message on lugnet.cad.dev." That way you can just wait with actually coming up (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A36A7C6.2C67@m...ing.com... MAJOR SNIPPAGE: (...) Heh... I kinda like the way that sounds :-) Good ideas, BTW, Frank. -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) If we take that route then I assume that (L)GPL is not going to be used. I think we can also add a clause "other licenses can be negociated with the authors". I also liked the idea of requiring the source code for a conversion program, if the (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Sometimes it's scary how in agreement we are... (...) A differentiation which I think would also be valuable to make is a differentiation between any sort of converter program which uses the definition of the parts in the library to create an (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Erik Olson" <olsone@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:G5G03K.E93@lugnet.com... (...) either. (...) developer, (...) I'm (...) somehow a (...) LGPL and (...) (requiring (...) project, (...) I (...) libraries I (...) parts- (...) too. The (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) I've written some thoughts further down in this thread, but what I know about license details I'll write here (but hasn't this been gone over before?) GPL infects derivative works. LGPL need not. If you want to prohibit commercialization, take (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Pardon me for jumping into the middle here, but as an application developer, this is my statement on this point: I've put in about a hundred hours into my parts-using app BrickDraw3D. I'm willing to give the program away but not on GPL terms. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Right. And that's my problem with GPL in a nutshell. It leaks into stuff. Now, we've reasonably outlined how the parts license doesn't leak into stuff like published designs, renderings, instruction sets, etc. But if licensing the parts (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) I'm not absolutely convinced that it's good to require any program which uses the library to be GPLed, but what I am absolutely convinced is that we don't want to restrict a program which uses a proprietary file format and parts library from (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:3A35795E.D2224C....com.br... (...) create a (...) way (...) such a (...) VMRL (...) authorship. (...) The ideal would be to somehow have the author's name associated with the part, (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Someone gave an example about a text that was written with a copyrighted font, I think the same principle applies here. (...) In this case the person is redistributing a part of the library, so he must comply to the license terms. IANAL. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:G5FDDy.LLo@lugnet.com... (...) create a (...) any way (...) (as (...) viewed.) (...) parts (...) such a (...) some VMRL (...) authorship. (...) reasonably. (...) commercial sale. (...) Like I (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A354E45.2F1C@m...ing.com... (...) And printing instructions for inclusion in a published work for commercial sale. Eg. an idea book with LCAD instructions. -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Also, you need to make sure printing instructions is covered reasonably. (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G58Mzp.JAs@lugnet.com... (...) am (...) wrong (...) vocalism. (...) terms (...) contribute). (...) Perhaps part authors need to do more thinking and talking about this. I must admit (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Windscreen 4 x 4 x 1
|
|
Somehow I lost the .dat file for Windscreen 4 x 4 x 1. If someone could please send it to me, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! --Ryan (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
"James J." <jejackso@memphis.edu> wrote in message news:G5E0A3.ID6@lugnet.com... (...) Yes, it is a good idea to move past the old LDraw and into the new stuff like MLCad. Though LDraw will still be available and supported, the newer programs will (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
(...) planned (...) nothing (...) Yes, it's true. We [the LCAD Comm.] are changing as the advancements do... (...) take (...) ideas (...) L3Lab, (...) lot (...) Is this a completely "good" idea? I've only recently learned LCAD and have been using (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
"ludo soete" <ludo.soete@village.uunet.be> wrote in message news:G5D8zJ.2LH@lugnet.com... (...) That's a great idea. Right now, Tom McDonald is working on converting Bram Lambrecht's LDraw/LEdit tutorial to the LDraw.org format, and also we have (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
Hi Tim, Good idea, perhaps (i hope so !) we can get some more detailed 'help' on the new programs/ utilities. There are a lot unknow / un documented buttons in those programs. I'm looking forward to it. Ludo (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: Date for next parts vote?
|
|
(...) I brought this up a couple of weeks ago: "(URL) haven't heard anything more since. Steve, what can I do to help? Thanks, Franklin (24 years ago, 9-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Date for next partsvote?
|
|
Hello, I saw at Tores Tracker that there are about 120 parts completed and I asked me when the next vote would be? Any hints? Greetings, Carsten (24 years ago, 9-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Idea for ldraw.org page
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:p7823tk77ekkdde...4ax.com... (...) page, (...) there (...) Maybe for 1/3 or 1/2 a point. Unless it was a total redo. Revisions are certainly an important contribution to the community (and (...) (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Idea for ldraw.org page
|
|
(...) That'd be nice, in a way. Do revisions count? Steve (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: bend thingie creator.
|
|
I've now used the upvector and your rotation matrix. Makes things a lot simpler. Thanks a lot for the tips. koen (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) The fact that I accept zlib is pretty irrelevant, really, inasmuch as I am neither a tool author nor a parts author. It DOES matter in that the wrong license happens to hamper my use of the lib, but not as much as what the parts authors think. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
We have been doing a lot of thinking and planning for the future focus of LDraw.org recently. Within a week or so, a new section of the site is planned to be released. From this, a slight restructuring will take place but nothing fundamentally (...) (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad) !!
|
| |
| | update for The bend thingie creator.
|
|
Hello, I've made an improved version of the bend thingie creator. I've added multiple segment support, edge lines. electric wires. and a new input format so you don't have to type a lot. Instructions and necessary files are all contained in one (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Idea for ldraw.org page
|
|
"John VanZwieten" <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote in message news:G57CyH.Bt0@lugnet.com... (...) That's a cool idea :-) I've been thinking of some things that can be done with the site recently, given that there is something in the works for (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Right. But it's a non-revokable allowance. You can't change your mind later, and force the removal of your contribution from the library. (...) This point wouldn't affect users. It's telling contributors that they are agreeing to something (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Idea for ldraw.org page
|
|
How about recognizing, either on the front page, or on the download page, the most prolific part authors per vote or per year. It seems like there are usually 3-4 authors at any given time who really carry the load for creating new parts, and it (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Yes, just like when you go to the Terms of Use page on LUGNET. (...) No, it's not like you're giving away a physical object, you're just allowing it to be redistributed under another license. (...) Ok. (...) As long as users can still use (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
Is this about a license for parts-builders or the format of the DAT files ? Personally I think the current DAT file structure is the best there is . Of course one would want higher quality outputs from Povray like the heads i've seen in other (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Rather than harm, I think we owe you thanks for having dug in a bit to get another perspective! Thanks! (...) I disagree here, as we have seen in some recent instances of differing versions of parts, we can argue that LDraw parts are artistic (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:G55oJJ.M9@lugnet.com... (...) cost (...) is (...) The "user" base may be small, but the "viewer" base is much larger. How many times have you seen an LDraw'n model and thought, "I have got to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Right. Now you're asking the right question. I don't know the answer. (...) True. For instance me. But if a workable royalty scheme and a searchable catalog were introduced, I think I'd be designing like mad and putting one after another up (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Just to raise a point, I have both, as both have their place. (...) Great list of attributes. However, they didn't hire Leonardo, for whatever reason, so we may or may not be able to count on them actually happening. (...) I've some (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) I agree. But it is a sunk cost. Do you still buy vinyl because you have a record player - or did you move to CD as it was better? (dear reader : please go to .debate to discuss vinyl v CD ) Disregarding sunk costs is a basic law of economics. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) That's information you have and we didn't... so I defer, gladly. However I do want to repeat this: (...) Well, I know what *I* prefer anyway. Open source is better than closed source, LDraw format, warts and all, is at least publicly (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) When TLG offered me a job, my first task would be to work in that project so I know what this is all about. I signed an NDA when I was in Billund and I can't talk about it but I think I can say that unless they changed their plans, they won't (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) I thought we were close to having the right mods in a previous draft. (...) In view of the implications contained in *this*: (URL) w.r.t. designing your own custom sets for TLC to manufacture for you... I think it is *extremely* important to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | ldraw.org Holiday Fun
|
|
Here's an idea... Does someone want to take the standard ldraw.org header image, and give it Christmas decorations? I think that would be pretty cool, and would allow someone out there to explore what they can do with enhancing an image. I'll accept (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: does anyone have a way to do rubber bands and belts?
|
|
Thanks for the info. I am accually ldrawing the 8480 space shuttle and that has some rubber belts in it. (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM entrance question
|
|
(...) I doubt anyone would have a problem with it... -Shiri (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDLite status (was Re: LDLite center offset problem?)
|
|
(...) I use the ldglite as my default viewer, and as we all know it's just a thin port of the ldlite 1.6 source. I know I'm looking forward to some of these new goodies and I think there might be one or two other linux/BSD/*nix users out there who (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: does anyone have a way to do rubber bands and belts?
|
|
You can use Ldraw-mode to model any curved parts. If you use it to model the technic flexible hose (not the ribbed kind), then the "inner" cylinder used for the subpart is the correct diameter for the belts. I just created a belt to go between two (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) I still couldn't understand what do you call "contributor's license". The way I understand it is that when someone submits a part to the voting process, they are allowing it to be redistributed under the "redistribution license". I don't see (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
The only problem is, this license is no use without an Authors/Contributors license to go with it. And I think this is one is *too* brief. Steve (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDLite status (was Re: LDLite center offset problem?)
|
|
I use it in conjunction with LDAO, and stand-alone sometimes. What I'd most like to see is an option to automatically scale and center the model. And, like Steve (I think) said, to crop saved images to the model boundaries to save space. Thanks, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM entrance question
|
|
(...) Huh? Do you really think otherwise? (...) Really no need for it. Selçuk (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM entrance question
|
|
If the resulting votes yield a close call, will we be able to request *hand recounts*? Sorry, I has to say it! :) -- ---...--- Brian J. Sayatovic mailto:trin@1.net (replace '1' with 'one') "Terry K" <legoverse@yahoo.com> wrote in message (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Part description help request
|
|
(...) For the CATEGORY, I recommentd either "Boat" or "Minifig Accessory". Depending on which CATEGORY you use, that will determine the first word of the DESCRIPTION. For KEYWORDS, I recommend the following: cannon, cannons, cannonade, "black (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM entrance question
|
|
Terry K skrev i meddelandet ... (...) No objection. -- Anders Isaksson, Sweden BlockCAD: (2 URLs) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Winner of the December 2000 ldraw MOTM is.......
|
|
Terry K skrev i meddelandet ... (...) What about dial-up connections that get a new IP number each time - how do the ISP's reuse those numbers? First caller after my logoff get's the same IP as I had? Each modem at the ISP has a dedicated IP? (I (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM entrance question
|
|
(...) (third time the charm?) No issues... I would love to see some entries from you! ++Lar (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM entrance question
|
|
(...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Part description help request
|
|
Hello everyone, I am just about finished with two new parts. The "Pirate" cannon (then non shooting one) and it's base piece. I would like some suggestions on a good part description, keywords and a category. They are available for viewing at my "in (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Fiber Optics module
|
|
Has anyone else noticed that the axle hole on this .dat file is 2 ldu higher than it should be? It would be great if someone else with this part could confirm this. -John Van (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM entrance question
|
|
I would trust you. Terry K <legoverse@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:G4yK5F.8F5@lugnet.com... (...) some (...) Or (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: MOTM entrance question
|
|
"Terry K" <legoverse@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:G4yK5F.8F5@lugnet.com... (...) some (...) Or (...) I wouldn't have a problem with it. -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (URL) - Zacktron Alliance ICQ: (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | MOTM entrance question
|
|
Hi all, Just a quick survey of opinion. Given the fact that I oversee the voting, is there any objection to me submitting an entry in the MOTM? Am I trustworthy enough to handle it, or would it be preferable to have some oversight of the results? (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Winner of the December 2000 ldraw MOTM is.......
|
|
(...) The parallels to the US election are just *too* sweet:-) But I see that this time the Gore gone won. <g, d, r> -John (...) (24 years ago, 2-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
