|
|
 | | 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)
|
|
