 | | 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
|
|
(...) I haven't contributed many parts to the library, so I've been keeping my trap shut throughout all of this, but I'm a little curious about a few points. What would happen if someone were to create a part but for some reason didn't want it to be (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
Have you covered the case where a parts author submits a new part for review, but because of errors the part is rejected? I think you should still have ldraw.org retain rights to modify and distribute, so that someone else could clean up the file (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
