Subject:
|
Re: Parts license
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:24:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1159 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> <contributor terms>
> > 6. The contributor grants ldraw.org a non-exclusive, unrevokable license to
> > the work.
> c /unrevokable/paid up, non-revokable/ everywhere that "unrevokable" is used.
>
> "paid up" is important to insert as I can grant you a license which you
> accept, but which requires a payment. until you pay, you're not paid up. By
> stating paid up, it reinforces that this is a free license.
Can we c/paid up/no-charge/? And is there a significant difference between
"unrevokable" and non-revokable?
> I oppose preventing commercial programs from using the library. This is a bad
> policy and I'm glad to see Steve agrees. c.f. what a mess we would have if
> Java (or GNU C++) could not be used in commercial programs.
>
> I would like to see something in this that explicitly addresses that point,
Hmm. I can see a few different ways that 'commercial programs' would 'use'
the library:
1. They would read the files in order to generate renderings. IOW, they'd
be LDraw-compatible. Is that really a concern of the license for the
library? It seems like this would be an issue of licensing the LDraw
graphics description language.[1]
2. They'd include the library in their distribution, in order to accomplish
#1. In this case, it would be a redistribution, and should be covered by
the redistribution rules.
> and further, clarifies that USERS can use the parts in renderings which they
> copyright. That is, if use of ldraw parts means I can't assert a copyright on
> instructions I produce, that would be a very bad thing indeed.
Aye. Or aye, aye. And that model-files are completely copyrighted by
their authors, no strings attached. And it should probably be explicitly
stated that users can use any program they'd like. Sounds cheesy when
stated like that, but it needs to be said.
--
Steve
1) IMO, the LDraw/DAT[2] GDL should be placed in the public domain, to
avoid nasty problems like this. Or at least should be made gnu-free.
2) In my mind, there is a slight difference between the definition of the
DAT GDL, and LDraw's implementation of it. Mostly having to do with the
implied search-path and the implicit 'typing' of files. It's a 'layer
1'/'layer 2' thing, I s'pose.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) They're different. Paid up means that even if a fee is instituted at some point, the current license holders are covered. No charge doesn't carry that meaning. Paid up is a special term used in this sort of gobbledegook. (...) Yes. One is (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
