 | | LDLite extended syntax (was: Re: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I forgot to ask: have you added more statements in LDLite 2.0? Are you planning on documenting them? I noticed the documentation of the LDL extensions is gone from the LDLite homepage. Steve (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) But isn't the GPL a case of GNU throwing out some verbiage and saying, 'OK, here's an example, use it or modify or whatever', and authors/publishers actually copying the license, and putting it on their own work. It's not like GNU is brokering (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I don't think it's a matter of correct/incorrect/right/wrong. It's a matter of agreeing on the definition for 'ldraw.org'. Or, it's a matter of deciding the parameters for the perimeter of our group, and then deciding on a name for that group. (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) What does 'conversion to another format' mean? Do you mean converting the ARJ archive to ZIP format? How about converting the ASCII data to EBCDIC? Or doing a straight conversion to a binary format?[1] How about reorganizing the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Are you OK with this, with the intent that if ldraw.org decides to stop publishing, it will be giving up the licenses granted to it by the contributors? (...) Right. (...) Right, with Larry's modification. (...) Sorry, sloppy short-hand. "free (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Hmm. I'm not reading your tone clearly on this. I *assume* you (Larry) would prefer that we not specify $$$ limits on redistribution. My take: I wrote the clause in, because I figured people would want it. But I think freeriders will short (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Like Larry said, I included item II.5 in order to deal with the case of ldraw.org. I understand how Jacob feels about revokable licenses, but I'm OK with this idea, because ldraw.org is the party which is terminating the license. Maybe it (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Hmm. My thought was that if ldraw.org rejects the part, there's no further claim (by ldraw.org) on it. I've had part submissions that I've sent back to the author, because of obvious problems, and the author dropped the submission, for various (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | *** LDView v0.9 Released ***
|
|
You can now download LDView v0.9 (both source and binaries) from: (URL) biggest thing added in this release from the standpoint of implementation difficulty is sphere substitution. (Note that my sphere substitution produces a sphere with a different (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Ok. I see your point. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Parts authoring with sub parts
|
|
Hi, I post this question to the specialists. If i write a part, and would use sub parts in it, how do you do this? I wrote (& posted it to lugnet) the 9V straight track (2865.dat) and its possible that i write some more 9V track parts. The track (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: "Minifig Torso Town Fleece-Lined Jacket Over Black T-Shirt Pattern"...
|
|
After getting a good night's rest, I came up with an alternative naming scheme. I could call this part "Minifig Torso Bomber Jacket Town Pattern" as long as it's understood that the Adventurers' Pilot torso would be called "Minifig Torso Bomber (...) (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)
|
| |
| | "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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
