Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:53:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
979 times
|
| |
|
|
I will be the debian maintainer of leocad, so this issue is of interest
to me. I asked a few questions about the parts library on the
debian-legal mailing list. Here are the questions, answers, and my
opinions about them.
Please note that I mean no harm by posting this, I am just trying to
become more informed and I think this post has some interesting
information.
On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 06:53:37PM -0500, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 03:58:42PM -0600, Pat Mahoney wrote:
> > For those who remember my old questions, no, it has not been resolved.
> >
> > Ldraw.org coordinates and puts together a parts library (of lego style
> > pieces) which they distribute from their site. The library is a self
> > extracting exe which contains individual parts files in some 3d format
> > or another (no, I really don't know what format). These pieces are
> > used by various programs to put together into lego models (leocad in my
> > case http://www.leocad.org).
> >
> > There are several issues that I don't understand.
> >
> > 1) Is this parts library copyrightable? It is simply descriptions of
> > physical things that anyone can see and measure; it is discovered
> > data. I've attached an email about this from the mailing lists at
> > ldraw.
>
>
> No. Copyright restrictions apply only for creative works. Facts (like a lego
> brick is 1" long by .5" tall by .5" deep) are not covered by copyright.
>
> One might agrue that a lego brick is like a sculpture, and thus a creative
> work restricted under copyright. However, that argument is flawed. A lego
> brick very much like a masonary brick, and as such has a similar copyright
> status.
>
> I also recall lego kits including parts such as gears, axles, and motors.
> Mechanical drawings made of these items through disassembly and measurement
> are no more restricted under copyright than models of the respective parts
> in an automobile made through a similar process. Companies can (and do)
> disassemble automobiles and take measurements in order to publish books that
> include drawings and dimensions of these parts in order to aid in the repair
> and rebuilding of automobiles.
>
> Inventions, such as interlocking building bricks, gear assemblies, and
> motors, are intended to be restricted by patents, not by copyright. It's my
> understanding that lego's patent on interlocking toy building bricks expired
> many years ago.
Hm... more about that later.
>
> > 2) Let's say it is copyrightable and has some license or other on it.
> > I make a model (using the parts library) and publish it in 3d
> > format. What is the relationship between my model and the original
> > library? Is it considered a derivative work? If enough 3d,
> > finished models were gathered up, one could theoretically extract
> > the pieces and recreate the original parts library, circumventing
> > any license on the original library.
>
> Drawings of buildings intended to be built from lego bricks may be covered
> by copyright just like drawings of buildings intended to be built from real
> bricks. However, no copyright applies to the individual bricks.
>
> Even if the part sets turn out to be restricted by copryight, one might
> argue that the different types of lego bricks are like glyphs in a fontset.
> Even if a fontset is restricted by copyright, documents typeset in that font
> are not considered to be derived works of the typeset.
>
> I'll leave the rest for someone else to answer.
I find this interesting. I guess a model published in 3d format would
not be a derivative work of the parts library? That still doesn't
answer the question of what happens if I reproduce the parts library
from various 3d models...
>
> --
> Brian Ristuccia
> brian@ristuccia.com
> bristucc@cs.uml.edu
I don't know if this guy is a lawyer or what, but I'd assume he knows
something if he answeres questions on debian-legal.
I kind of disagree with him on the copyrightability of the parts
library. It was stated before that parts creation is a creative
process. I like the font analogy... Perhaps the parts library could
be treated as such, though I am not really sure what that would mean.
--
Pat Mahoney <patmahoney@gmx.net>
Those of you who think you know everything are annoying those of us who do :)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Rather than harm, I think we owe you thanks for having dug in a bit to get another perspective! Thanks! (...) I disagree here, as we have seen in some recent instances of differing versions of parts, we can argue that LDraw parts are artistic (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | License - again
|
| Last time we talked about a license for the parts library we couldn't reach an agreement, so here I am again trying to wrap this up. I know this is a boring subject but let's try to reach an agreement. I don't think we need to write a long license, (...) (24 years ago, 2-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
|
|
|
|
