 | | Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) That's information you have and we didn't... so I defer, gladly. However I do want to repeat this: (...) Well, I know what *I* prefer anyway. Open source is better than closed source, LDraw format, warts and all, is at least publicly (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: License - again —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) I agree. But it is a sunk cost. Do you still buy vinyl because you have a record player - or did you move to CD as it was better? (dear reader : please go to .debate to discuss vinyl v CD ) Disregarding sunk costs is a basic law of economics. (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Just to raise a point, I have both, as both have their place. (...) Great list of attributes. However, they didn't hire Leonardo, for whatever reason, so we may or may not be able to count on them actually happening. (...) I've some (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: License - again —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | It is a moot point, but I view economics as: “A means by which alternatives may be structured so that a decision may be reached.” Therefore the sunk cost rule is universally applicable. If the conclusion is that the existing CAD set-up is not (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) I'm sorry, I have to agree with you that it is indeed universally applicable, and yet... not actually relevant to the real question. The real question is this: What is the expected benefit of developing and releasing a CAD program - that is in (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: License - again —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | I hear you clearly now Larry. However, on reflection, I still think the cost of providing a ldraw import ability into CREATOR II (Son of Creator – or is that blasphemy?) will be more than the benefits it would supply to the _public_. You have to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: License - again —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) Right. Now you're asking the right question. I don't know the answer. (...) True. For instance me. But if a workable royalty scheme and a searchable catalog were introduced, I think I'd be designing like mad and putting one after another up (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: License - again —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | "Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:G55oJJ.M9@lugnet.com... (...) cost (...) is (...) The "user" base may be small, but the "viewer" base is much larger. How many times have you seen an LDraw'n model and thought, "I have got to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: License - again —Koen Jordens
|
| | | | Is this about a license for parts-builders or the format of the DAT files ? Personally I think the current DAT file structure is the best there is . Of course one would want higher quality outputs from Povray like the heads i've seen in other (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
