 | | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Here's a first stab at a comprehensive contributor/ldraw.org/user license. Geez, I'm glad IANAL. BTW, I think the "redistribution" bits should be reworked to clearly split 'redistributions for the sake of redistributing the library' from (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:G15GM6.L5C@lugnet.com... (...) Heh...great work so far! I'll comment on points which I think need clarification. (...) Probably so. (...) of (...) We probably need to clarify commercial (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Why would commercial endevours be unacceptable? I can't see the point of drawing the line between commercial and non-commercial use. If someone can figure out a way to make money by adding value to what we've done, more power to them. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
A few suggested changes. IANAL and IANAPA (not a Parts Author). (...) What is the intent here? To allow others to carry on if ldraw.org goes kaput? In that case c/will be revoked/will lapse/. That means that ldraw.org rights to the stuff cease to (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Instead of DAT file wouldn't it be better to use something like "Parts file" ? We might use a different format in the future. (...) I found those 2 contraditory but it might be because english is not my native language. Could you explain it (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I think we should have something saying that if a person updates a .dat file then they must also make the changes available to ldraw.org under this license (and ldraw.org might accept the changes or not). (...) I don't think that's needed, (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I think 2 means Ldraw.org has the right to chose what to keep and 7 means that the work will become part of the Ldraw.org library (and probably "protected" by the license). Although they are related for sure. Jude (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Not parts, because all files in the library (parts, primitives, subparts, shortcuts, composite parts, component parts) should be covered equally by the terms. But I see your point about avoiding DAT. How about I just remove the DAT? . LIBRARY: (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Can we c/paid up/no-charge/? And is there a significant difference between "unrevokable" and non-revokable? (...) Hmm. I can see a few different ways that 'commercial programs' would 'use' the library: 1. They would read the files in order to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
Have you covered the case where a parts author submits a new part for review, but because of errors the part is rejected? I think you should still have ldraw.org retain rights to modify and distribute, so that someone else could clean up the file (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) They're different. Paid up means that even if a fee is instituted at some point, the current license holders are covered. No charge doesn't carry that meaning. Paid up is a special term used in this sort of gobbledegook. (...) Yes. One is (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
Steve: (...) [...] Ok. (...) So far ok. (...) I have a strong dislike for revokable licenses. I think this paragraph should be dropped. (...) Ok. (...) "... no further right to that contribution." (...) Ok. (...) "... license to distribute the work (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I suggested a reword for it. However I'm not sure your likes and dislikes are germane. The intent of this paragraph is to ensure that if LDraw.org should cease to exist, it is clear what should happen. That is, that the rights should revert (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Oh, one other thing I just thought of. IS this what we want to have happen? Or does the "defunct" Ldraw.org need to "retain" rights in order to preserve them? I dunno. Also, we need to check to make sure that using non-exclusive is sufficient, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) LOL! (It's a sad sort of silliness, but still humourous[1].) Totally agree. BTW, from my point of view, as a modelmaker, I wanna be able to use the standard "official" parts and make renderings of them and supply those on webpages as static (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) was (...) but (...) Ack. I just thought of an example of being licensed to distribute but not use. It's an obvious one! Can you think of it too? OK, think hard... spacing so that the answer doesn't show up in the summary ... spacing so that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Hmm. My thought was that if ldraw.org rejects the part, there's no further claim (by ldraw.org) on it. I've had part submissions that I've sent back to the author, because of obvious problems, and the author dropped the submission, for various (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Like Larry said, I included item II.5 in order to deal with the case of ldraw.org. I understand how Jacob feels about revokable licenses, but I'm OK with this idea, because ldraw.org is the party which is terminating the license. Maybe it (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Hmm. I'm not reading your tone clearly on this. I *assume* you (Larry) would prefer that we not specify $$$ limits on redistribution. My take: I wrote the clause in, because I figured people would want it. But I think freeriders will short (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Are you OK with this, with the intent that if ldraw.org decides to stop publishing, it will be giving up the licenses granted to it by the contributors? (...) Right. (...) Right, with Larry's modification. (...) Sorry, sloppy short-hand. "free (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDLite extended syntax (was: Re: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I forgot to ask: have you added more statements in LDLite 2.0? Are you planning on documenting them? I noticed the documentation of the LDL extensions is gone from the LDLite homepage. Steve (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) By category, probably. On slow disk systems, it may be adventagous to pre-load and cache an entire category of common parts. It also opens to door for people to release a collection of pieces only as a complete set. One might choose to put the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDLite extended syntax (was: Re: Parts license)
|
|
(...) No, I havn't, but past performance is no indication of future results. :) (...) Oh, I just trimmed down the page because it was too long. That should all still be in the readme files. -gyug (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I think a monetary limit on a redistribution charge is better than disallowing fees entirely, which I think is what Jacob wanted. My point is that if it actually costs money to distribute, and you prevent cost recovery, you discourage people (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
