 | | Re: LDraw.org Future Plans/Help
|
|
When I started using MLCAD/L3P/POV-RAY, I had quite a few issues. - Installation - The existing ldraw.org was pretty good in instructing how to find and install these things. However, I had to wade through a bunch of stuff to figure out that these (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) Again, care needs to be taken here. If the program is a program which converts the library itself, requiring it to be liberally licensed may be reasonable. A conversion program which just converts a LDraw .DAT to a new format which will use a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
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
|
|
Why don't you just say: " This product is licensed under the standard Lego Users Computer Aided Design License. For information or/and questions about the license post a message on lugnet.cad.dev." That way you can just wait with actually coming up (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A36A7C6.2C67@m...ing.com... MAJOR SNIPPAGE: (...) Heh... I kinda like the way that sounds :-) Good ideas, BTW, Frank. -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) If we take that route then I assume that (L)GPL is not going to be used. I think we can also add a clause "other licenses can be negociated with the authors". I also liked the idea of requiring the source code for a conversion program, if the (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Sometimes it's scary how in agreement we are... (...) A differentiation which I think would also be valuable to make is a differentiation between any sort of converter program which uses the definition of the parts in the library to create an (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Erik Olson" <olsone@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:G5G03K.E93@lugnet.com... (...) either. (...) developer, (...) I'm (...) somehow a (...) LGPL and (...) (requiring (...) project, (...) I (...) libraries I (...) parts- (...) too. The (...) (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
