Subject:
|
Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Sep 2000 21:24:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1210 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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.
*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
agreement between contributors and users, and leave the vague 'ldraw.org'
out of the picture, except as caretaker of the library? Basically, by
making a contribution, the author agrees to grant a license to all users,
with terms X, Y, and Z?
Using common sense (a bad idea in this arena, I realize), this would mean
the library would be covered by a very large number of licenses, the number
of which would be either (# contributors) x (# users) or (# contributions)
x (# users), and w/could never be enumerated (unless we stared keeping
track of specific contributions).
> Like I said, Bog.
Yah, sure.
> 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.)
Probably having a 'license committee' would be a good idea, especially
since it would improve our chances of moving forward on this issue. Not
that we're doing bad right now, but we're still in the stage of throwing in
ideas and opinions. No hard decisions have been required, so far.
How hard would it be to have a membership list for ldraw.org? I'm thinking
of a webpage, something like:
==================================================================
Do you want to stand and be counted as a member of ldraw.org? Then
complete and submit the following form!
Tag/Handle: [ ]
Real Name: [ ]
E-mail address: [ ]
()add me to the roll ()remove me from the roll ()change my info
[submit]
==================================================================
When someone signs up, their information is added to a file somewhere, and
we all cheerfully go on with our lives.
Is it a Good idea, or a Bad idea? Not any sort of an idea?
Anyone? ... Anyone? ... Pieniazek?
> 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.
Right.
> Rather than starting from scratch, if this sounds right, we ought to go borrow
> some ITF charter and modify it. (mostly by simplifying it)
Right.
> ++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.
BTW, my feeling is the self-selecting definition is more correct than any
other. At this point.
> Who ALSO isn't keen on structure or regulation except where it's
> absolutely needed)
Right.
Steve
--
ObLego -- I just got a Styling Pack (one of the Technic Power
Packs). I've been geeking on the silver Technic fairings/panels. Which
are definitely plated. And have different mold numbers than the same parts
in the Supercar II. And are brighter than the similarly-plated
8448 wheel hubs. And the 5220 has *8* Technic half-pins. Not
bad for a $14.49. I wonder if that's a record for price-per-half-pin.
Heck, $14.49/220 pieces has got to be some kind of record for accessory
sets.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
| (...) Right. But we'd be building cloud castles without it. (...) What if someone declines to accept? What if someone modifies that license slightly? With a structure and an org you have the power to reject. I think this sort of license (IANAL!!!!!) (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
| (...) I think that would be the best solution. IIRC, GPL doesn't have any organizations mentioned (maybe they say something about the FSF), it's a direct agreement between users and authors. Why don't we simply use GPL or LGPL ? Leonardo (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
