 | | 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
|
| 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
|
| (...) 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)
| | | | | 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)
| |
