Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:15:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
879 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Pat Mahoney writes:
> 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.
Rather than harm, I think we owe you thanks for having dug in a bit to get
another perspective! Thanks!
>
> 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 disagree here, as we have seen in some recent instances of differing
versions of parts, we can argue that LDraw parts are artistic
representations, at least from one perspective. Consider the different
versions of the 1x4x3 window shutter, which differ in how they look when
rendered. You can argue one is a flawed representation but you can also
argue artistic intent.
Consider patterned parts, where this is even more pronounced.
Yet this may be a weak counter.
Other than that I thought it seemed apropos.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: License - again
|
| 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
