 | | Re: Parts authoring with sub parts
|
|
(...) is (...) parts. (...) O.K. Steve, I'll break it in sub parts for reuse in other track parts as curved track, points and cross. When reddy, i'll repost it. regards and thanks for the answer. Ludo (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView v0.9 Released ***
|
|
(...) Hey, I believe that's my cue to resume my nagging about the L3Lab source code ;-) Why not just release it all? Just a thought... I'll be quiet now. Don (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView v0.9 Released ***
|
|
"Travis Cobbs" wrote... (...) If you are interested, I can e-mail you the L3Lab polling code. It is built on top of MFC Doc/View, but I'm sure you can bend it. /Lars (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView v0.9 Released ***
|
|
"Paul Easter" <pneaster@knoxy.net> wrote in message news:G1HCxz.I8G@lugnet.com... (...) would (...) todo (...) I'm pretty sure you're asking for an option to use the files in th 48 subdirectory; is this correct? I'm definitely going to add the (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView v0.9 Released ***
|
|
(...) Hello, It works great for me so far... Is there any chance of getting a high-res (48pt) 1-4cyls and 1-4cyls2 substitutions in there? I am working on the primitive files, also working on a torus generation spread sheet. See my todo (inprocess) (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView v0.9 Released ***
|
|
"Terry K" <legoverse@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:G1H3qH.Kst@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) added (...) viewer (...) Thanks for the comments. This should already work. I added command line filename support in version 0.7. I haven't created an (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: *** LDView v0.9 Released ***
|
|
(...) Couple of feature requests: 1. Have it accept model files when launching. You know, pass the filename to the program as it starts. This would make for an excellent viewer when added to the right-click menu in explorer. And it could also be (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I think a monetary limit on a redistribution charge is better than disallowing fees entirely, which I think is what Jacob wanted. My point is that if it actually costs money to distribute, and you prevent cost recovery, you discourage people (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
"Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:39CFBA54.A0214F....com.br... (...) Yup. (...) I still say that we need a dedicated subgroup of Lugnuts to take care of LCAD - whether it pertains to all of LCAD or to just the people (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDLite extended syntax (was: Re: Parts license)
|
|
(...) No, I havn't, but past performance is no indication of future results. :) (...) Oh, I just trimmed down the page because it was too long. That should all still be in the readme files. -gyug (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) By category, probably. On slow disk systems, it may be adventagous to pre-load and cache an entire category of common parts. It also opens to door for people to release a collection of pieces only as a complete set. One might choose to put the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I think all of those examples are simply conversions to other formats, they don't change the contents of the files. This could be added to the 'Definitions' section of the license. (...) From the zlib license: 1. The origin of this software (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I thought there could be both ldraw.org and LCAD, where ldraw.org is a subgroup from the LCAD community. But that's not important now. :) (...) Why not use Lugnet (1) ? We could use it instead of ldraw.org, so we wouldn't need to have any new (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Who are 'ldraw.org'? (was: Parts license)
|
|
(...) I think one of the points of creating GPL was to have a 'brokering party' available for everyone who wants to use it. There's no need to modify anything. Here's an paragraph from the GPL: 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) Ok. I see your point. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) I think we have a little latitude, since TYCO, MegaBloks, Block-Men, and others have produced actual bricks of nearly identical dimensions as LEGO. It seems to me that if an actual product can be produced with such close similarity, a virtual (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts authoring with sub parts [DAT]
|
|
(...) I'd say that yes, it's worth it to use it as a subpart. To do this, take the code for the 'click' mechanism, copy it to another file. Subpart files are distributed in the parts\s\ directory. To refer to these files, you have to include the (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) This is a good point, and I agree with it. I don't know if it has anything to do with copyright or not. (...) As I understand it (and IANAL), 'copyright' applies to the expression of ideas. So you can hold copyright on a file, which prevents (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts license
|
|
(...) The general POV from the Jessimans is they are trusting us to do what is right/best. I take that to mean they are likely to agree to what we want to do, but we will definitely want to ask for express agreement, once we have a concrete (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
