 | | Re: Renaming of 2916.dat
|
|
(...) I agree (obviously since you referenced my post as your second ref)! (...) I disagree. That's not the intent. The license that is contemplated to be in effect does not let you as the author prevent people from submitting revisions to parts (...) (22 years ago, 22-Jul-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
