 | | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) A lot of licenses work that way. Maybe I used the word "publish" wrong, I want to make sure that if someone fixes a bug in a part, he's forced to send his fixes to ldraw.org and allow everyone to use them. (...) That's the case of LeoCAD and (...) (24 years ago, 20-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)
|
