Subject:
|
Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Sep 2000 15:17:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1293 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> 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?
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
| (...) Like I (just now) replied to Larry, this situation is a bit different, because ldraw.org/LCAD would also be brokering the agreements between contributors and users. I'm not sure that can be done, without having some recognition (in the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
