 | | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) The basic question here is too big for a few people to decide; it concerns everyone who includes themselves in 'the group known as ldraw.org'. So this is for everyone: Should ldraw.org restrict redistributions of the parts library? Or should (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Test version of LDraw Add-On Installation
|
|
Steve, I gave it a shot. It installed okay on a Win98 (_not_ Win98 Second Edition) machine with minimal other software installed (one I'm rebuilding at work). The machine had Office 2000 Professional (SR 1) and Norton AntiVirus 2000, and that's (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:G15Fuo.IHw@lugnet.com... (...) Then just use the standard English word for non-gendered (or actually gender inclusive) singular possessive, which happens to be "his." -John Van (24 years ago, 21-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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) I'm not sure this is practical. It also may not be enforceable. Someone may 'modify' the library in a way that ldraw.org can't use. For example, they may do a mechanical conversion of the files to a binary format, perhaps in a single file. (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "Needs Work"- Needs Work
|
|
(...) I am happy to incorporate / edit the existing text, and now I can see (URL) and the pages it links to, but these are some missing HTML end tags. Internet Explorer (4.0) can cope with these, but Netscape (4.08) cannot and just displays the raw (...) (24 years ago, 19-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Why don't you hold off until we've got a decent parts-contributor-license put together? Although, the last I knew, they got this group via e-mail. So I hope they're reading this now, and can support us on this. Steve (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: unofficial new primitive -- "Rounded Corner" [DAT]
|
|
(...) Huh? The way you've got the file now, the sphere's centerpoint is at <1,1,1>. (...) The current orientation of the file has the 'bulge' going toward the origin, not away from it. So I'd say it's bulging inward. (...) You've got that whole (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) It was a bad idea, please ignore that paragraph. (...) Ok, any lawyers around ? Anyone wants to write a license with all of that fancy legal stuff ? (...) The important thing for the parts is to keep them free to use and people who improve the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "Needs Work"- Needs Work
|
|
"Thomas Burger" <Tburger666@aol.com> wrote in message news:G13G5x.3yn@lugnet.com... (...) The reason I didn't publish it was because I was waiting for it to be corrected gramatically. Since I'm not a parts author, I wouldn't be comfortable doing it (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "Needs Work"- Needs Work
|
|
(...) yes it is a false link , tim never published the stuff i sent him (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) What Todd (and I) were commenting on was this (optional) provision: (...) Which is different from your statement above, and would block TLC from using the parts unless their program was free. Before finalizing the licenses, it would be (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
