 | | Re: License - again
|
|
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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
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)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) Right, but that's an implied understanding, not an explicit agreement. Basically, there should be a "part submission" page on ldraw.org. One of the features of that page should be a link to a full contributor's agreement. Another necessary (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) I thought we were close to having the right mods in a previous draft. (...) In view of the implications contained in *this*: (URL) w.r.t. designing your own custom sets for TLC to manufacture for you... I think it is *extremely* important to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: does anyone have a way to do rubber bands and belts?
|
|
Thanks for the info. I am accually ldrawing the 8480 space shuttle and that has some rubber belts in it. (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDLite status (was Re: LDLite center offset problem?)
|
|
(...) I use the ldglite as my default viewer, and as we all know it's just a thin port of the ldlite 1.6 source. I know I'm looking forward to some of these new goodies and I think there might be one or two other linux/BSD/*nix users out there who (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: does anyone have a way to do rubber bands and belts?
|
|
You can use Ldraw-mode to model any curved parts. If you use it to model the technic flexible hose (not the ribbed kind), then the "inner" cylinder used for the subpart is the correct diameter for the belts. I just created a belt to go between two (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) I still couldn't understand what do you call "contributor's license". The way I understand it is that when someone submits a part to the voting process, they are allowing it to be redistributed under the "redistribution license". I don't see (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
The only problem is, this license is no use without an Authors/Contributors license to go with it. And I think this is one is *too* brief. Steve (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDLite status (was Re: LDLite center offset problem?)
|
|
I use it in conjunction with LDAO, and stand-alone sometimes. What I'd most like to see is an option to automatically scale and center the model. And, like Steve (I think) said, to crop saved images to the model boundaries to save space. Thanks, (...) (24 years ago, 4-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
