 | | Keywords Question
|
|
Is there a particular thread where the guidelines, if any, of keywords are discussed in depth? Dave! (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
Damn this stuff is is as complicated as politics :( How does one license his program for this license? Then I can replace the "blablablablablablablabla" I have currently standing for a license into this one. Oh yes, I would also like to put a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | License revision 1
|
|
Based on some feedback, here's a revised copy of the license. I hope it addresses more concerns raised here, while keeping it free. Note that paragraph 5 is only for commercial applications, L3P is not subject to it. ---...--- This library is (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) 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". (...) Yes, maybe (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Bad idea, you can't use the word "Lego". (...) Someone already asked for it. :) Leonardo (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
