 | | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) LOL! (It's a sad sort of silliness, but still humourous[1].) Totally agree. BTW, from my point of view, as a modelmaker, I wanna be able to use the standard "official" parts and make renderings of them and supply those on webpages as static (...) (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)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I consider myself a member of the "LCAD community" in that I use the ldraw program, Steve's LDAO, and the parts ref on LUGNET. I promote the ldraw.org web site, keep intending to submit an entry for the MOTM, believe in the open nature of the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Maybe we're talking about two different things. If I find a "defective" part and fix it for my own use, why should I have to publish it? I'm not taking credit for anyone else's work, especially since no one else is using it. That would be like (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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: 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)
|
| |
| | Re: ZNAP newsgroup
|
|
(...) "have been done"? Are they on a web-page somewhere? I'd love to have a look at them... Regards, Hakan (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.znap, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: ZNAP newsgroup
|
|
(...) Some primitives have been done already but not enough to model anything yet (all the primitives can create so far is straight beams) and they're not widely released yet. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.znap, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: ZNAP newsgroup
|
|
(...) Yup: lugnet.znap <=> (URL) Also is the a ZNAP partserf? LEGO ZNAP is real LEGO, so I would imagine eventually someday someone will model the ZNAP parts for LDraw and they would become part of the Partsref? --Todd (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.znap, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) You know that, and I know that, but some people have a different view... Another approach is to avoid third-person, non-gendered, singular pronouns entirely. Steve (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Test version of LDraw Add-On Installation
|
|
(...) Great! I've also gotten a couple of positive responses via e-mail. So I'll go ahead and post the revised LDAO. Just as soon as I get a couple of niggling bugs worked out.... Steve (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I only converted the original library to another format because it gives a much faster rendering and James didn't want other people to redistribute the files in the original format, he wanted to have people download files from his page (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
"Bram Lambrecht" <BXL34@po.cwru.edu> wrote in message news:MABBIBJJFOJIOHD...wru.edu... (...) of (...) Good one, Bram :-) Serously, these are things to consider. Since it appears some movements are being made to 'package' LCAD more and become more (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I haven't contributed many parts to the library, so I've been keeping my trap shut throughout all of this, but I'm a little curious about a few points. What would happen if someone were to create a part but for some reason didn't want it to be (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) And what about people who have written tutorials and tend to answer lots of LDraw related questions...but have no "official" role in the site? --Bram Bram Lambrecht BXL34@po.cwru.edu (URL) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
"Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:39CA2C31.7D06F3....com.br... (...) concerns (...) I don't have a ton of time to reply to comments on library distribution, but here's a little clarification on what I see as Steve (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
Have you covered the case where a parts author submits a new part for review, but because of errors the part is rejected? I think you should still have ldraw.org retain rights to modify and distribute, so that someone else could clean up the file (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Can we c/paid up/no-charge/? And is there a significant difference between "unrevokable" and non-revokable? (...) Hmm. I can see a few different ways that 'commercial programs' would 'use' the library: 1. They would read the files in order to (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) And who would that group be ? Only person who actually do some work directly for ldraw.org or it includes everyone who contributed a part to the library or a program ? (...) I think redistribution is too vague, we should have different (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: Parts license
|
|
(...) Have we heard a POV on this from the Jessimans? The fact that ldraw.org is sometimes hard to reach for some people mean we should definitely allow mirrors (maybe the mirrors need to have permission?) Also, I think LCAD programmers should be (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) The basic question here is too big for a few people to decide; it concerns everyone who includes themselves in 'the group known as ldraw.org'. So this is for everyone: Should ldraw.org restrict redistributions of the parts library? Or should (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Test version of LDraw Add-On Installation
|
|
Steve, I gave it a shot. It installed okay on a Win98 (_not_ Win98 Second Edition) machine with minimal other software installed (one I'm rebuilding at work). The machine had Office 2000 Professional (SR 1) and Norton AntiVirus 2000, and that's (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:G15Fuo.IHw@lugnet.com... (...) Then just use the standard English word for non-gendered (or actually gender inclusive) singular possessive, which happens to be "his." -John Van (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Not parts, because all files in the library (parts, primitives, subparts, shortcuts, composite parts, component parts) should be covered equally by the terms. But I see your point about avoiding DAT. How about I just remove the DAT? . LIBRARY: (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I think 2 means Ldraw.org has the right to chose what to keep and 7 means that the work will become part of the Ldraw.org library (and probably "protected" by the license). Although they are related for sure. Jude (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I think we should have something saying that if a person updates a .dat file then they must also make the changes available to ldraw.org under this license (and ldraw.org might accept the changes or not). (...) I don't think that's needed, (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Instead of DAT file wouldn't it be better to use something like "Parts file" ? We might use a different format in the future. (...) I found those 2 contraditory but it might be because english is not my native language. Could you explain it (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
A few suggested changes. IANAL and IANAPA (not a Parts Author). (...) What is the intent here? To allow others to carry on if ldraw.org goes kaput? In that case c/will be revoked/will lapse/. That means that ldraw.org rights to the stuff cease to (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) A lot of licenses work that way. Maybe I used the word "publish" wrong, I want to make sure that if someone fixes a bug in a part, he's forced to send his fixes to ldraw.org and allow everyone to use them. (...) That's the case of LeoCAD and (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Why would commercial endevours be unacceptable? I can't see the point of drawing the line between commercial and non-commercial use. If someone can figure out a way to make money by adding value to what we've done, more power to them. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
