Subject:
|
Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:32:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1365 times
|
| |
|
|
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 this area is fairly clear, the only way to grant
rights or receive them is to have some sort of realization or structure or
existance. You can't grant rights to a mob that has no defined membership.
Like I said, Bog.
I would be the last to suggest more structure than is absolutely needed.
However, a page from how the internet task forces organise may be instructive.
They have this problem because they create standards (via member contribution)
which get copyrighted and which people license... seem similar?
IIRC a number of them have charters and have "executive committees" which are
elected and which make decisions. The criterion (there's only one) to
participate in election of the committee is to be able to vote via the
internet.
Can we do that? Have a few people set up an organizing committee, nominate
themselves to run things, and then have an election to ratify matters by
approving their committeeship? We'd be doing it merely for the sake of form.
But there would then be a defined structure. (another alternative is to just
have the key people "enshrined" as the org and leave it at that, but that
leaves out transitions and successions.)
As it is now, the license may be a futile exercise without a rights granting
body behind it. It (the license) is a good thing to have around so we ought to
determine how best to get the body to exist with a minimum of fuss and bother.
Rather than starting from scratch, if this sounds right, we ought to go borrow
some ITF charter and modify it. (mostly by simplifying it)
++Lar (who doesn't consider himself in ldraw.org under most definitions, but
does under the one that Steve gave that included everyone who's ever voted on
parts. Who ALSO isn't keen on structure or regulation except where it's
absolutely needed)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
