 | | Re: License - again —Paul Gyugyi
|
| | | I like the artistic license, but not for a library of parts. The key issue to deal with in the LCAD library is "abandonment". The license must allow active LCAD people to maintain, modify, convert and distribute parts that people author. The (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: License - again —Erik Olson
|
| | | | | (...) Oh, artistic is definitely not the best license to start from for parts. I don't think it achieves anyone's goals in that direction. Artistic is well suited for an application. I'd have to review this thread's history to be aware of the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: License - again —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) BTW, you're talking about the "contributor's agreement" here, not a user or distribution license. I agree completely. My ideal "contributor's agreement" would be to act like each contributed work existed as two independent entities, which had (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: License - again —Leonardo Zide
|
| | | | (...) In other words, the contributors grant ldraw.org the rights to do whatever they want with the parts. This should be in the parts submission page, along with a button "I have read and accept the terms of the agreement". It has nothing to do (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| | | | |
