 | | Re: POV difference in LDraw?
|
|
(...) I have no knowledge of writing scripts for converting files between CAD packages but I would be interested to know if anyone has or could write a converter from MLCAD to AutoCAD. AutoCAD like Microstation and 3DSMAX has a built in rendering (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: POV difference in LDraw?
|
|
(...) One of the main reasons I wrote my 3DSMAX to DAT converter was to use the boolean ops modelling abilities of 3DSMAX. When I created the technic wheels and tires that were basically a dish with holes bored through them, I couldn't imagine doing (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:kuph3tcm65ren3n...4ax.com... (...) bit (...) panel (...) Hehe.. Well given the nature of LCAD, its pretty difficult to select who is going to lead. But on the other side, having a panel of (...) (24 years ago, 14-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
