 | | "Minifig Torso Town Fleece-Lined Jacket Over Black T-Shirt Pattern"...
|
|
This is the best NAME that I can think of for the Brown Minifig Torso in this set: "(URL) need the name for this piece because I'm encoding it as a DAT file.) The (slight, IMO) problem with this name is that it's 65 characters long, just one more (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Off-topic: Abbreviations
|
|
(...) I should point you to Shiri's acronym FAQ, but I can't remember where it is right now. It's probably linked from her member page. Anyway, IIRC=If I Recall Correctly IANAL=I Am Not A Lawyer Steve (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Off-topic: Abbreviations
|
|
I'm new to Internet correspondence, and I don't know a lot of the abbreviations like IIRC and IANAL. Could someone explain these please? Thanks, --Ryan E-mail: Ryanjf2@juno.com Amateur radio call sign: kb1fob (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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: Parts license
|
|
(...) was (...) but (...) Ack. I just thought of an example of being licensed to distribute but not use. It's an obvious one! Can you think of it too? OK, think hard... spacing so that the answer doesn't show up in the summary ... spacing so that (...) (24 years ago, 22-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
