Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:24:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1551 times
|
| |
| |
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> 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 different library is a different ball of
> wax, we don't want to kill the possibility of converters between
> commercial programs with proprietary (and potentially patented or
> otherwise protected in some way preventing fan creation of the
> converter) file formats and LDraw.
Agreed. I meant converting the library, not converting a model created
with the library. Remember, we can always add a line saying "If you need
the library released under a different license, write to ask
permission".
> With some of those thoughts in mind, what the LDraw library license
> should cover is distribution and inclusion of the library itself. I'm
> not sure how much can be done to protect the library from being
> converted (and note that a tool which renders an LDraw model into say
> POV-RAY is effectively converting the library).
Yes, maybe requiring the source code for conversion programs is not a
good idea, adding something like this would require L2P/L3P to have
their source available and it seems that the authors don't want this.
Maybe requiring the source code for conversion programs only for
commercial applications would solve this ?
Leonardo
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|