 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
