Subject:
|
Re: License revision 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:55:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
834 times
|
| |
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message
news:lpff3tspjvsl3iuot6r29u6raqrgushk00@4ax.com...
> I'd like to not have different terms for commercial and non-commercial
> applications. I don't see a valid reason for discriminating on the basis
> of cost.
Agreed.
> My thinking is this: most LCAD'ish things are available in a free program.
> In order for someone charge for their program, and be successful at it,
> their software must have significant value above the zero-price
> alternatives. If the value isn't there, no one will buy their program, and
> it will go away (either literally or figuratively). If the value is there,
> it's also likely that someone else will eventually duplicate the
> value-adding feature, and start giving it away.
Good point - up until recently I have been against LCAD derivative software for
sale, but some of the points made here has changed my opinion. Still, I trust
the decision making process here to do the best for LCAD.
> > 5. If the library or parts of it are converted to another format then
> > the source code of the program used to convert the library must
> > also
> > be made available.
>
> I disagree with #5 completely.
Why? (Not disagreeing with you, just asking). But in this case, if TLC were to
make a converter to one of their formats, this would severely restrict them.
That's one reason against this line, if I'm understanding it correctly. I
suppose that I don't like this line either.
BTW - this license should make it as easy as possible for TLC to adopt the use
of the DAT file format to whatever extent. I do not personally believe they
will ever use the library of parts created, but it should be easy for them to
generate a program which converts DAT and market it or make it available should
they choose to do so.
> I disagree with this as well. I think such communication should be
> directed to the semi-mythical ldraw.org.
Which leads us to try to define the semi-mythical ldraw.org again :-) Its a bit
tricky, but any suggestions? Will there be a leadership heirarchy, or a panel
of contributors (which is an odd number) to govern LCAD? I think that this
should be defined if this license is to go into effect.
> > [INSERT LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS (authors + maintainers)]
>
> Change this to:
>
> . Contributors:
> . James Jessiman
> . Tore Eriksson
> . Terry Keller
> . Tim Courtney
> . Authors are listed in the part files they contributed to.
>
> I'd rather not rev the license document every time we get a new author.
Good idea. Steve, you should put yourself in there as well, IMO.
--
Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org - Centralized LDraw Resources
http://www.zacktron.com - Zacktron Alliance
ICQ: 23951114 - AIM: TimCourtne
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License revision 1
|
| (...) For points made previously in the thread, I think. Basically, I think if our aim is to free users/distributors/developers to use the library however they want, forcing them to release source code is a *big* contradiction of the aim of the (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: License revision 1
|
| (...) I like where you're going, mostly. (...) I'd like to not have different terms for commercial and non-commercial applications. I don't see a valid reason for discriminating on the basis of cost. My thinking is this: most LCAD'ish things are (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
