Subject:
|
Re: Parts license
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Sep 2000 02:17:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1102 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide writes:
> > [...]
> > Optional condition: The parts can only be used by free programs.
> > (don't know if this is really needed but I wouldn't mind it for my
> > parts)
> > [...]
>
> Sounds interesting. I would rather see it under something like Perl's
> Artistic License than GPL, though. How do you define "programs"? And
> the license should be careful not to preclude the possibility of LEGO using
> or interfacing with the parts somehow someday.
I'd definitely be somewhat concerned about a license which restricted the
parts from being used with non-free programs. I'd hate to preclude the
possibility of a really awesome commercial program being forced to re-invent
the wheel, and probably end up with a proprietary data format because they
can't use the existing parts database. Also, as I am starting to get
experience with working with GPL and similar licenses for product development,
I see a real problem with licensing which makes it very hard for a company to
retain rights to their developments and to be able to proffit from them. If
the GPL really works the way it sounds like it does, I fear that Linux may
practically collapse as companies start to realize it's too difficult to make
money developing for it.
In the case of LDraw parts, some ideas which might be more palatable (and I'm
not sure that these ideas don't have problems):
- any program which utilizes LDraw parts or is compatible in any way with
LDraw parts (for example has an import feature) must use openly documented
file formats (the idea here being to allow a potentially better file format to
be developed by a commercial enterprise, but prevent it from becomming
proprietary).
- any parts developed in the LDraw format must be made freely available, under
the LDraw Parts License
- any program which is in any way compatible with LDraw parts must make all
parts intended for that product to be made available in LDraw form under the
LDraw Parts License (this provides a way to suck in any parts commercially
developed and keeps them available to all, but a nice little subtlety is that
if the enterprise feels that they have developed a new, better file format,
which allows for richer parts definition in some way, need not necessarily
grant free distribution of parts which they have developed in their new format
[but the LDraw Parts License should make it clear that if someone does develop
such a new format, that they must retain the free nature of any parts they
inherit from LDraw, even if they improve them]).
These are just my feelings, and I strongly respect all the efforts of all of
you. I must admit that I haven't really got into LDraw myself, but I love
seeing the models presented using LDraw. I want to see the LEGO CAD community
develop the best tools that it can.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) Sounds interesting. I would rather see it under something like Perl's Artistic License than GPL, though. How do you define "programs"? And the license should be careful not to preclude the possibility of LEGO using or interfacing with the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
