 | | Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
I would like to object on the strongest terms possible the "Modified part description" of the part 2916.dat. This is in keeping with my beliefs on how parts should be named. Please refer to: (URL) is not necessarily a train part. Is this file not my (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Description of MLCad extensions available now
|
|
(...) No idea. (I am not going to read that document, while Michael claims that its contents are covered by the quoted license) (...) Yes of course, but file formats are (AFAIK) not covered by copyright. If Michael wants to protect a file format, he (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | .LDR file license (Was: Description of MLCad extensions...)
|
|
(...) Larry, sorry I didn't reply sooner but I was away on vacation. I guess everyone else must be too. Anyhow, I see you got my point. The whole reason for a parts license is to prevent new part authors from asserting arbitrary demands on the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: File header questions/requests
|
|
(...) Yes, these files should go through some approval process. I don't know about Chris, but I definitely can and do make mistakes. This is especially true when parts are renumbered - that new part number needs to be verified, if at all possible. I (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | File header questions/requests
|
|
I have 1 comment and 1 PT request: 1.) Do we really need to submit files where the only change is the addition of keywords, a moved to statement, a file name change, etc...? I feel these things can be changed behind the scenes and do not have to (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
