 | | Re: License revision 1
|
|
(...) The idea of making it different for commercial applications was to allow L3P to continue to be distributed under its current license. Now I see that it's a bad thing and #5 should either be completely removed or required for free applications (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
(...) 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. (...) It's better, english is not my native language. (...) Ok, it seems that a lot of people (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) In other words, the contributors grant ldraw.org the rights to do whatever they want with the parts. This should be in the parts submission page, along with a button "I have read and accept the terms of the agreement". It has nothing to do (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: POV difference in LDraw?
|
|
(...) I don't think having the POV-Ray source code will help us here. The problem with LDraw vs POV-Ray is that the difference and other constructive geometry functions in POV-Ray use the inside vs outside concept. Ie, a POV-Ray object can have a (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | POV difference in LDraw?
|
|
Is there any way to make something similar to the useful difference function from POV into LDraw? It's far beyond my programming skils, but we've made so many great improvements together so far so I believe that there is hope. Isn't the POV source (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
(...) Seconding Pat Mahoney's questions directed at parts 4 and 5. My own questions: On part 4: I understand the main need for the license is: packaging the parts library with an application for distribution. Question: is the license meant to impose (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
First, koen, I am the one who asked. I would like to package leocad for Debian GNU/Linux, and I cannot [legally] distribute the ldraw parts library with it unless it contains an acceptable license. (...) Why? Say Internet explorer had some sort of (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Keywords Question
|
|
(...) Yes there is. If the news-search wasn't temporarily deactivated, I'd point you to it. Here's a cooked version of the discussion: ===...=== FAQ for CATEGORY and KEYWORDS meta-statements ===...=== Q: What are '0 CATEGORY' and '0 KEYWORDS'? A: (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:lpff3tspjvsl3iu...4ax.com... (...) Agreed. (...) Good point - up until recently I have been against LCAD derivative software for sale, but some of the points made here has changed my (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Actually LeoCAD is somewhere between L2P and L3P. When converting a part to POV it searches first in LGEO then if the part does not exist in LGEO (or LGEO is not installed), it creates the part from the LeoCAD library, just like L3P. It's a (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) Yes, definitely. Nicely said. Steve (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) BTW, you're talking about the "contributor's agreement" here, not a user or distribution license. I agree completely. My ideal "contributor's agreement" would be to act like each contributed work existed as two independent entities, which had (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: L3PAO update (v 1.3)
|
|
(...) URL? --Bram Bram Lambrecht bram@cwru.edu (URL) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | L3PAO update (v 1.3)
|
|
When using L3PAO to do the Beretta this week, I noticed a few issues here and there, so I compiled an update. (URL) 1.3 ---...--- Fixed yet another error in the command line generator. If the path to l3p was the same as the path to L3PAO, it was (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Bram Lambrecht writes: [snip] (...) Filip Spacek did the conversion. (...) It would be great if when/if MLCad started allowing plugins, someone wrote a converter to POV which worked directly in MLCad. This would make life a bit (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.mlcad)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Bram Lambrecht" <bram@cwru.edu> wrote in message news:MABBIBJJFOJIOHD...wru.edu... (...) part in (...) The (...) relied (...) wrote (...) not (...) different. (...) LDraw (...) directly. (...) Thanks for the correction and lists. John Van (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | RE: License - again
|
|
(...) Actually, L2P uses the LGEO library written by Lutz Uhlman. Lutz also wrote L2P and all the textures that LGEO uses. AFAIK, Anton Raves has no connection with L2P at all. It's difficult to use Anton's parts because not only the coordinate (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:3A36D1B3.4287@m...ing.com... (...) This is the perfect example of the line we should draw with regard to converters. There are two main tools which convert an LDraw model to POV-Ray: L2P and (...) (24 years ago, 13-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
