Subject:
|
Re: Parts license
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Sep 2000 13:49:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1288 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
> "Steve Bliss" <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:G15GM6.L5C@lugnet.com...
> > 2. Ldraw.org grants users a non-exclusive, unrevokable license to use the
> > Library for their personal or commercial endevours.
>
> We probably need to clarify commercial endeavours, which would be acceptable
> and which would not. Say a project proposal might be acceptable, where
> designing a commercial CAD program would not.
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. Remember, they are required to credit ldraw.org and provide
a link to www.ldraw.org. So anyone who buys their stuff will know where to
get the real deal.
Maybe we should require republishers to provide the linke *before*
purchase/download.
And maybe redistributing the library unchanged should be limited to
handling-charge-only.
BTW, my terminology on point 2 totally misses the 'non-commercial, publicly
available' end of things.
> We should require registration of all redistributions - and an indication if
> they're standalone or included in a package. That way we can keep track of
> where this is being distributed from - because ultimately it comes back to
> us and we need a way of monitoring this distribution.
Uh, I don't see that at all. In fact, I'd rather *prohibit* redistribution
than require/allow 'registration' of redistributions.
One problem with requiring registration is if we all fall off the face of
the internet, and someone wants to redistribute the LCAD stuff. If they
can't contact us, they can't register, and if they can't register, they
can't redistribute.
Another approach (which achieves mostly the same goals) is to disallow
distribution, except by permission of representatives of ldraw.org. But
that means that the library would not qualify as 'free', because ldraw.org
could refuse permission randomly.
But I'd still rather allow redistribution, open-source style, and
*encourage* people to point to the source, rather than redistributing. And
encourage them to tell us about the redistribution.
> Check out the povray.org licensing - I like what they have done with their
> redistribution cost rules for POV. We should set some sort of a dollar
> limit.
Wanna quote the relevant bits, or point me to a webpage?
> > 8. If the Library is redistributed in an essentially modified form, the • user
> > may not label it as 'LCAD Parts Library'. The user must identify 'LCAD • Parts
> > Library' as the source of the redistribution.
>
> And they must register the redistribution with us.
See above.
I'm not sure about the wording of point 8. My goal was to make sure no one
trys to redistribute posing as ldraw.org.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
