 | | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | | | 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
|
| (...) Like Larry said, I included item II.5 in order to deal with the case of ldraw.org. I understand how Jacob feels about revokable licenses, but I'm OK with this idea, because ldraw.org is the party which is terminating the license. Maybe it (...) (24 years ago, 25-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)
| | | | | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) I think a monetary limit on a redistribution charge is better than disallowing fees entirely, which I think is what Jacob wanted. My point is that if it actually costs money to distribute, and you prevent cost recovery, you discourage people (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
