Subject:
|
Re: Parts license
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Sep 2000 17:09:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1401 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Jacob Sparre Andersen writes:
> Steve:
> > 5. If ldraw.org permanently ceases to publish or distribute the Library, all
> > licenses to the works contained in the library will be revoked.
>
> I have a strong dislike for revokable licenses. I think
> this paragraph should be dropped.
I suggested a reword for it. However I'm not sure your likes and dislikes are
germane. The intent of this paragraph is to ensure that if LDraw.org should
cease to exist, it is clear what should happen. That is, that the rights
should revert and no successor org has rights without reacquiring them.
The alternative, if the paragraph were omitted, is that some org may come into
existance, claim to be an LDraw successor, and start making claims about what
it can or cannot do. Being explicit, whether you personally like revokable
licenses or not, may protect the rights of the contributors better than making
the paragraph read in a way that satisfies your dislikes.
> "... license to distribute the work according to this license."
c /license to distribute the work according to /right to distribute the work
under the terms/
Else you're being circular.
> > 11. If a redistribution allows users direct access to the files contained in
> > the Library, then the republisher must grant users of the redistributed
> > Library the same rights granted to in this User Agreement.
>
> Why not just "11. A republisher must grant users of the
> redistributed Library the same rights as granted in this
> User Agreement."?
What if the republisher doesn't use the material in source form? In that case
your change forces them to set up a distribution hub to make the source
available. Not good.
Also, (overzealous snipping means I removed the cite by mistake) on the bit
about charging a nominal fee for redistribution, this is common practice.
Disallowing it means you are enabling freeriders. This tends to discourage
people from even using the stuff in the first place, as GNU has learned.
++Lar
>
> Jacob
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) Oh, one other thing I just thought of. IS this what we want to have happen? Or does the "defunct" Ldraw.org need to "retain" rights in order to preserve them? I dunno. Also, we need to check to make sure that using non-exclusive is sufficient, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) Hmm. I'm not reading your tone clearly on this. I *assume* you (Larry) would prefer that we not specify $$$ limits on redistribution. My take: I wrote the clause in, because I figured people would want it. But I think freeriders will short (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Parts license
|
| Steve: (...) [...] Ok. (...) So far ok. (...) I have a strong dislike for revokable licenses. I think this paragraph should be dropped. (...) Ok. (...) "... no further right to that contribution." (...) Ok. (...) "... license to distribute the work (...) (24 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
