 | | 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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)
|
