 | | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Pardon me for jumping into the middle here, but as an application developer, this is my statement on this point: I've put in about a hundred hours into my parts-using app BrickDraw3D. I'm willing to give the program away but not on GPL terms. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Right. And that's my problem with GPL in a nutshell. It leaks into stuff. Now, we've reasonably outlined how the parts license doesn't leak into stuff like published designs, renderings, instruction sets, etc. But if licensing the parts (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) I'm not absolutely convinced that it's good to require any program which uses the library to be GPLed, but what I am absolutely convinced is that we don't want to restrict a program which uses a proprietary file format and parts library from (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:3A35795E.D2224C....com.br... (...) create a (...) way (...) such a (...) VMRL (...) authorship. (...) The ideal would be to somehow have the author's name associated with the part, (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Someone gave an example about a text that was written with a copyrighted font, I think the same principle applies here. (...) In this case the person is redistributing a part of the library, so he must comply to the license terms. IANAL. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message news:G5FDDy.LLo@lugnet.com... (...) create a (...) any way (...) (as (...) viewed.) (...) parts (...) such a (...) some VMRL (...) authorship. (...) reasonably. (...) commercial sale. (...) Like I (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A354E45.2F1C@m...ing.com... (...) And printing instructions for inclusion in a published work for commercial sale. Eg. an idea book with LCAD instructions. -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Also, you need to make sure printing instructions is covered reasonably. (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G58Mzp.JAs@lugnet.com... (...) am (...) wrong (...) vocalism. (...) terms (...) contribute). (...) Perhaps part authors need to do more thinking and talking about this. I must admit (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Windscreen 4 x 4 x 1
|
|
Somehow I lost the .dat file for Windscreen 4 x 4 x 1. If someone could please send it to me, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! --Ryan (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
"James J." <jejackso@memphis.edu> wrote in message news:G5E0A3.ID6@lugnet.com... (...) Yes, it is a good idea to move past the old LDraw and into the new stuff like MLCad. Though LDraw will still be available and supported, the newer programs will (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
(...) planned (...) nothing (...) Yes, it's true. We [the LCAD Comm.] are changing as the advancements do... (...) take (...) ideas (...) L3Lab, (...) lot (...) Is this a completely "good" idea? I've only recently learned LCAD and have been using (...) (24 years ago, 11-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
"ludo soete" <ludo.soete@village.uunet.be> wrote in message news:G5D8zJ.2LH@lugnet.com... (...) That's a great idea. Right now, Tom McDonald is working on converting Bram Lambrecht's LDraw/LEdit tutorial to the LDraw.org format, and also we have (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
Hi Tim, Good idea, perhaps (i hope so !) we can get some more detailed 'help' on the new programs/ utilities. There are a lot unknow / un documented buttons in those programs. I'm looking forward to it. Ludo (...) (24 years ago, 10-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: bend thingie creator.
|
|
I've now used the upvector and your rotation matrix. Makes things a lot simpler. Thanks a lot for the tips. koen (24 years ago, 8-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
