 | | Re: ZNAP newsgroup
|
|
(...) I spoke out of turn, my apologies. It's up to the author to make any announcements if and when. Till then, never mind. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.znap, 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: Parts license
|
|
(...) Why do you think that way ? If the person was writing a new part then he could use any license he wanted but he's using someone else's work and IMO it's fair to give the original author the same rights that he gave you. A person could for (...) (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)
|
|
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: Parts license
|
|
Bram Lambrecht skrev i meddelandet ... (...) Is this always possible/wanted? I have made a program (experimental as yet) that converts LDRAW parts to BlockCAD format, but as BC can't use the level of detail that LDRAW gives, I need to go through the (...) (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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) They're different. Paid up means that even if a fee is instituted at some point, the current license holders are covered. No charge doesn't carry that meaning. Paid up is a special term used in this sort of gobbledegook. (...) Yes. One is (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
