 | | Re: Parts license —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) Can we c/paid up/no-charge/? And is there a significant difference between "unrevokable" and non-revokable? (...) Hmm. I can see a few different ways that 'commercial programs' would 'use' the library: 1. They would read the files in order to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Parts license —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Parts license —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) LOL! (It's a sad sort of silliness, but still humourous[1].) Totally agree. BTW, from my point of view, as a modelmaker, I wanna be able to use the standard "official" parts and make renderings of them and supply those on webpages as static (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Parts license —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) was (...) but (...) Ack. I just thought of an example of being licensed to distribute but not use. It's an obvious one! Can you think of it too? OK, think hard... spacing so that the answer doesn't show up in the summary ... spacing so that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
