 | | 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: Parts license
|
|
(...) Have we heard a POV on this from the Jessimans? The fact that ldraw.org is sometimes hard to reach for some people mean we should definitely allow mirrors (maybe the mirrors need to have permission?) Also, I think LCAD programmers should be (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) And who would that group be ? Only person who actually do some work directly for ldraw.org or it includes everyone who contributed a part to the library or a program ? (...) I think redistribution is too vague, we should have different (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
"Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:39CA2C31.7D06F3....com.br... (...) concerns (...) I don't have a ton of time to reply to comments on library distribution, but here's a little clarification on what I see as Steve (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) Isn't that a self-answering question? ;) Substitute my statement for 'that group' in your statement, and you get: "And who would (everyone who includes themselves in 'the group known as ldraw.org') be?" I guess we'd have to take a roll-call. I (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) And what about people who have written tutorials and tend to answer lots of LDraw related questions...but have no "official" role in the site? --Bram Bram Lambrecht BXL34@po.cwru.edu (URL) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I only converted the original library to another format because it gives a much faster rendering and James didn't want other people to redistribute the files in the original format, he wanted to have people download files from his page (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
"Bram Lambrecht" <BXL34@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message news:MABBIBJJFOJIOHD...wru.edu... (...) of (...) Good one, Bram :-) Serously, these are things to consider. Since it appears some movements are being made to 'package' LCAD more and become more (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
Bram Lambrecht skrev i meddelandet ... (...) Is this always possible/wanted? I have made a program (experimental as yet) that converts LDRAW parts to BlockCAD format, but as BC can't use the level of detail that LDRAW gives, I need to go through the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
Steve Bliss skrev i meddelandet ... (...) I would count any part author as _in_ ldraw.org, especially if you are considered _in_ just by voting on a part release... (...) 'Normal' organizations usually include both 'active' and 'passive' members, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) [snip] I think that your view of ldraw.org should be called 'LCAD community' because it includes people outside ldraw.org, while Tim's view would be the correct definition of ldraw.org. That's the way I see things (but I could be wrong) and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
Bog. This particular question is very thorny and very important to get right. NELUG stumbled over "who is in NELUG" a while back. And they're not trying to grant rights to anyone that need to survive their discorporation! US copyright and IP law in (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G1Awuz.JpB@lugnet.com... (...) instructive. (...) contribution) (...) are (...) form. (...) just (...) granting (...) ought to (...) bother. Yup. (...) borrow (...) I did a search for (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) *Sigh*. That's the answer to the question I didn't want to ask. Before going on with replying to the rest of your post, I want to throw out something for consideration: Would it be possible to write the 'license' so that there's a direct (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I consider myself a member of the "LCAD community" in that I use the ldraw program, Steve's LDAO, and the parts ref on LUGNET. I promote the ldraw.org web site, keep intending to submit an entry for the MOTM, believe in the open nature of the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) Right. But we'd be building cloud castles without it. (...) What if someone declines to accept? What if someone modifies that license slightly? With a structure and an org you have the power to reject. I think this sort of license (IANAL!!!!!) (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I think that would be the best solution. IIRC, GPL doesn't have any organizations mentioned (maybe they say something about the FSF), it's a direct agreement between users and authors. Why don't we simply use GPL or LGPL ? Leonardo (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) What does 'conversion to another format' mean? Do you mean converting the ARJ archive to ZIP format? How about converting the ASCII data to EBCDIC? Or doing a straight conversion to a binary format?[1] How about reorganizing the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I don't think it's a matter of correct/incorrect/right/wrong. It's a matter of agreeing on the definition for 'ldraw.org'. Or, it's a matter of deciding the parameters for the perimeter of our group, and then deciding on a name for that group. (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) But isn't the GPL a case of GNU throwing out some verbiage and saying, 'OK, here's an example, use it or modify or whatever', and authors/publishers actually copying the license, and putting it on their own work. It's not like GNU is brokering (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) The general POV from the Jessimans is they are trusting us to do what is right/best. I take that to mean they are likely to agree to what we want to do, but we will definitely want to ask for express agreement, once we have a concrete (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) Like I (just now) replied to Larry, this situation is a bit different, because ldraw.org/LCAD would also be brokering the agreements between contributors and users. I'm not sure that can be done, without having some recognition (in the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I think one of the points of creating GPL was to have a 'brokering party' available for everyone who wants to use it. There's no need to modify anything. Here's an paragraph from the GPL: 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I thought there could be both ldraw.org and LCAD, where ldraw.org is a subgroup from the LCAD community. But that's not important now. :) (...) Why not use Lugnet (1) ? We could use it instead of ldraw.org, so we wouldn't need to have any new (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I think all of those examples are simply conversions to other formats, they don't change the contents of the files. This could be added to the 'Definitions' section of the license. (...) From the zlib license: 1. The origin of this software (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
"Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:39CFBA54.A0214F....com.br... (...) Yup. (...) I still say that we need a dedicated subgroup of Lugnuts to take care of LCAD - whether it pertains to all of LCAD or to just the people (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) My thoughts: ARJ to ZIP? Simple Conversion ASCII to EBCDIC? Simple Conversion text to binary? Essential change reorganizing the directory structure? Major change posting all the files individually on a webserver? Major change (...) Hmmm. (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
