Subject:
|
Re: Parts license
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:38:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1152 times
|
| |
|
|
I am sorry to jump in so late. I am the debian packager of LeoCAD.
My general thoughts on this follow. I think it would be best to use a
common, existing license rather than add to the license soup if at all
possible. Of course, one doesn't want to compromise key issues to do so,
but that probably wouldn't happen...
In lugnet.cad.dev, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide writes:
> > It would be nice if we could come up with a license and get everyone
> > who created parts to agree with it. The license should also be part of
> > the requirements for new parts. Any suggestions ?
> If, for instance, I were to write the DAT for the Timmy torso, but for some
> zany reason didn't want it licensed, how could someone else thereafter license
> the part without arguably plagiarizing my file (other than creating a
> demonstrably different DAT file from scratch, which could be a battle in
> itself). What, for that matter, would happen if the licensed part were
> found/shown to be substantially similar to the original, non-licensed part?
> Or, alternatively, is there some provision inherent in the LCAD file format
> that makes parts automatically licensed once published, even if those parts
> aren't ultimately admitted to the library? Might this situation not lead to a
> small but significant number of unofficial parts that for reasons of propriety
> couldn't be licensed and therefore would remain absent from the official
> roster?
It could probably be argued that since the parts represent physical things,
they [the data in the library] are just "discovered" measurements of
empirical data. They are not "created" and therefore not copyrightable.
IANAL, and I know a lot of work goes into developing parts, but I thought,
for example, things discovered through scientific observations could not be
copyrighted/patented?
Well, forget that, here are some more thoughts:
If anyone is interested, the Debian Social Contract and the Debian Free
Software Guidelines can be found at <http://www.debian.org/social_contract>.
It specifically states:
1. Free Redistribution
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different
sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such
sale.
I'm not sure if this means that, as a single item, one could not set a
maximum price to be charged. I guess it only says "...component of an
aggregate...".
Also, if the license requires a link to ldraw.org, I think a maximum price
is an unnecessary restriction (those [unnecessary restrictions] should be
avoided I think...).
Again, I strongly encourage the use of an existing license.
I'll list the points I think everyone wants, having read the long thread
(hopefully I did not skim over anything important).
1. ldraw.org gets credit
2. copyleft (modifications must be released)
3. Modified versions will not pretend to be the original.
4. Commercially friendly.
If these are not your goals, or wish to add more, please comment.
The LGPL is an existing copyleft and commercially friendly (kind of). It
does not require (1) or (3). However, it has been my experience that free
software authors are very good at giving credit where credit is due.
I'm not sure what relation a rendered model has to the license of the parts
library, but you could add another clause that states that these are not
considered "derivative works".
IMHO, it would be better to use, say, the LGPL with an added clause that
requires (1) and (3) than to create a new license from scratch.
This leaves the scenario of ldraw.org possibly going away. I also don't
like the idea of revokeable license. If you stock LGPL it, this is not a
problem, as everyone the has same rights. If you add a clause to require
(3) then I think you have to specify a group that is in charge and what to
do if the group goes away. Then again, if (3) was required and ldraw.org
went away, anyone would be free to continue the development under a
different name.
On a slightly different topic, you might consider distributing two separate
parts libraries. The first would be the same, "official", while the second
would be a "works in progress".
This would make it simpler to get all the parts possible even though some
may not work correctly. If the WIP parts had some free license (the same as
the official), it might make it easier to coordinate efforts on bugfixing by
using CVS or something. Note that I am not a parts developer, and I really
don't know how it works now...
The WIP library would have loose requirements for inclusion of a part. When
a WIP part became clean, it would be moved to the official parts library.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Parts license
|
| (...) This is true, however the creation of parts is not merely a mechanical process -- the author does actually go through a creative process to model a part. This is because the author has to choose which details to model and which primitives to (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
