Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:25:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1551 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, John VanZwieten writes:
>
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
> news:G58Mzp.JAs@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide writes:
> >
> >
> > > Larry just said in another message that he agrees with the zlib
> > > license. I'll accept either GPL or zlib, does anyone have any concerns
> > > that are not covered by those licenses ?
> >
> > 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. I'm just a gadfly, don't read too much in to my • vocalism.
> >
> > that said...
> >
> > I prefer zlib to GPL as I think there is less leakthrough of license • terms
> > to derivative works... and that's what I care about most (except for the
> > second order effect on the likelihood of others continuing to • contribute).
> >
>
> Perhaps part authors need to do more thinking and talking about this. I
> must admit my eyes start to glaze over when terms like zlib, GPL and other
> legalese are tossed about, but whatever we do will likely have impact on
> the future of the parts library project.
>
> Here are some thoughts that are rolling around in my head:
>
> 1. Derivative works:
>
> In a situation where someone uses my parts in an LCad program to create a
> model and make pretty pictures of it, I don't want to restrict in any way
> their claim to copyrights of those pictures or even the model file (as
> long as use of that model file needs the parts library to be viewed.)
>
> If that person were to distribute their model in a way that the parts
> library was not needed (for example inlining all the parts) then the
> information about the authorship of the parts should be included in such a
> distribution.
>
> Any application which transforms the parts library (i.e. LeoCAD, some VMRL
> converter, or L3P) should also include information about part authorship.
> I know L3P does this nicely, what about LeoCAD?
>
> 2. Commercialization of parts library:
>
> I'm a bit ambivalent about this. On the one hand, I want the parts to be
> used as widely as possible, provided they give proper credit to authors.
> I like the idea that some of the programmers who have contributed here
> would turn LCAD into a commercial success.
>
> At the same time, I'm a little troubled at the thought that I would have
> to pay money to use a product that is completely reliant on the thousands
> of combined hours I and other authors have put into the parts library.
> I'm not quite sure what effect that would have on authors' willingness to
> make future contributions.
>
> Can any of you who understand these licenses comment on how they would
> relate to the above concerns?
I've written some thoughts further down in this thread, but what I know about
license details I'll write here (but hasn't this been gone over before?)
GPL infects derivative works. LGPL need not. If you want to prohibit
commercialization, take GPL (please don't though.)
LGPL says users must give back improvements to the actual library but doesn't
impose terms on dependent works. A dependent work would be an application built
on the library. Said application must come with library source, or tell where to
get it, and give credit where due.
For example, the gnu C library is LGPL. If it weren't any program compiled and
linked with GCC would automatically become GPL. (Please correct me if I'm wrong
on any detail there.)
If LDRAW parts were under LGPL, it would require users to give back any new
parts. I'm not clear on the status of translated formats, but if that involved
refinements, the user would be obligated to make the refinements available.
-Erik
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
