Subject:
|
Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Sep 2000 19:53:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1455 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide wrote:
> 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 ?
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 agreement) of the party doing the brokering. And that
would require the 'brokering party' to be well-(enough-)defined. Which
puts us back to the point of needing to organize.
But that's just me talking. I don't have a good idea how this would work.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
