Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 13:47:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1102 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide writes:
> > Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > >
> > > In view of the implications contained in *this*:
> > > http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=880 w.r.t. designing your own custom
> > > sets for TLC to manufacture for you... I think it is *extremely* important
> > > to do so.
> > >
> > > I would want the "free designing program" to be compatible with what has
> > > gone before, or better yet, to actually USE the LDraw format rather than
> > > requiring a conversion step. So I'd like TLC to be able to use it. Heck, I
> > > hope they license MLCad and just give people that. The thought of a CREATOR
> > > style drawing interface makes me blanch.
> >
> > When TLG offered me a job, my first task would be to work in that
> > project so I know what this is all about. I signed an NDA when I was in
> > Billund and I can't talk about it but I think I can say that unless they
> > changed their plans, they won't use the LDraw format.
>
> That's information you have and we didn't... so I defer, gladly. However I
> do want to repeat this:
>
> > > The thought of a CREATOR style drawing interface makes me blanch.
>
> > Do you think they will prefer a format compatible with their existing
> > applications or compatible with ours ? Remember that AFOLs never were a
> > high priority for them, otherwise we wouldn't have Town Jr.
>
> Well, I know what *I* prefer anyway. Open source is better than closed
> source, LDraw format, warts and all, is at least publicly documented. If
> they don't at least release the format of their info and the parts files,
> making an intercoverter at least theoretically possible, we will lose all
> the models created so far and people will basically have to start modeling
> all over. I don't see that as a good thing, do you?
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. The key question is:
“do the benefits of the new approach outweigh the cost of running two CAD
programmes?” I expect the answer is yes.
I'd be in favour of any LEGO drafting programme which:
1. Has a complete range of parts in all colours.
2. Gives 3d, as well as plan elevation view.
3. Gives output in POV type quality.
4. A 10 year old can use it within 30 minutes.
5. Installs via one set-up file.
6. Allowing some sort of interface with AutoCAD would also be good.
Scott A
Sunk cost
"The business equivalent of guilt. The equivalent to a membership fee which
is lost if it cannot be used. They represent the money invested in a project
which is already spent. Decisions should be based on the value of future
investments and not on how much has been spent."
>
> If they're open to working with us, I think they'll take it into
> consideration. I imagine some AFOLs will be raising this point with them
> directly in the not too distant future, in some capacity or another.
>
> > > PS, Leonardo, I think Steve is right about the gaps in your latest proposal.
> > > Authors have different needs than users.
> >
> > And what needs do authors have ? I've asked this before and I didn't
> > get an answer. As a (somewhat retired) parts author, I only want to have
> > credit for my work, I don't care about what people do with my parts.
>
> Not all parts authors necessarily have that viewpoint so we need to make it
> explicit that will be the result.
>
> I think some review of what went before is in order and I'll try to do that
> before posting again.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: License - again
|
| (...) 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)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
