Subject:
|
Re: License revision 1
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:19:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
696 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote:
>
> > Note that paragraph 5 is only for commercial applications, L3P is not
> > subject to it.
>
> 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.
I only added that because other people requested, I was happy with the
initial license. Personally I think that #4 is going to scare people
away.
> Does this work slightly better?
>
> . 4. All library contributors must be granted a full, paid-up license to
> . use the application. A nominal fee may be required, only to cover
> . the physical act of transferring a copy of the application.
It's better, english is not my native language.
> > 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.
Ok, it seems that a lot of people disagree with it, it will be
removed.
> > If you would like to use this library under other licenses, write to
> > the
> > authors to ask for permission; we sometimes make exceptions.
>
> I disagree with this as well. I think such communication should be
> directed to the semi-mythical ldraw.org.
What I had in mind for a contributors agreement would allow new
licenses to be negotiated directly with ldraw.org but I don't think it's
a nice attitude with the authors to do such thing.
> > [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.
I think it would be better to have all authors in the license,
otherwise no company will agree to #4. We can simply add new people to
the list just to get more free copies of the commercial applications.
Imagine that a .DAT importer is included in a program like 3DS or
Autocad, they cost more than $1000. It adds very little value to the
product and would force the company to give away as many copies as we
want because the list is not clear.
Leonardo
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
