Subject:
|
Re: License - again
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 19:46:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1603 times
|
| |
|
|
"John VanZwieten" <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> writes:
> Any licensing scheme we come up with should make a clear distinction
> between a use of the library which relies on the artistic work of the
> authors, and one which merely can read and write LDraw format.
It may be worth to note here that the binary format for LeoCAD falls
into the former category. And as Leonardo Zide has said, James Jessiman
did allow him to redistribute the transformed parts library independent
from the main LDraw distribution. I don't know if this should be given
any precedence?
Fredrik
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License - again
|
| "Fredrik Glöckner" <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message news:m3vgsm23c1.fsf@...ldomain... (...) It certainly should be given weight in any discussion of LeoCAD, and might help set precedent. Was giving credit to LDraw and part authors on (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
55 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
|
|
|
|
