 | | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) The fact that I accept zlib is pretty irrelevant, really, inasmuch as I am neither a tool author nor a parts author. It DOES matter in that the wrong license happens to hamper my use of the lib, but not as much as what the parts authors think. (...) (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
We have been doing a lot of thinking and planning for the future focus of LDraw.org recently. Within a week or so, a new section of the site is planned to be released. From this, a slight restructuring will take place but nothing fundamentally (...) (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad) !!
|
| |
| | update for The bend thingie creator.
|
|
Hello, I've made an improved version of the bend thingie creator. I've added multiple segment support, edge lines. electric wires. and a new input format so you don't have to type a lot. Instructions and necessary files are all contained in one (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Right. But it's a non-revokable allowance. You can't change your mind later, and force the removal of your contribution from the library. (...) This point wouldn't affect users. It's telling contributors that they are agreeing to something (...) (24 years ago, 7-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Yes, just like when you go to the Terms of Use page on LUGNET. (...) No, it's not like you're giving away a physical object, you're just allowing it to be redistributed under another license. (...) Ok. (...) As long as users can still use (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
