 | | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
|
(...) I think that www.ldraw.org should continue to exist and should focus only on things related to the program LDraw. (...) Lots of people don't read FAQs or other sources of documentation but it's worth to have them to at least help the few (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
|
"Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:3A3B8FF8.95F0A8....com.br... (...) Organization' (...) Ok. Lets figure out if we are going to make the move (LDraw vs LCAD in the name vote) and act on that. This doesn't necessarily (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
|
(...) There isn't a very formal organization right now, so this shift is not a huge step and should happen as soon as possible. (...) You mean a more formal support ? I think that any questions posted to the lugnet.cad.* groups is very well answered (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | someone mention my name?... (was "Re: Rubber Black")
|
|
(...) Eh? Who, me? Or, another Franklin? Just wondering... To the best of my recollection, none of the pieces I've encoded as DAT files have been rubber or included any rubber parts. Thanks, Franklin (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) James didn't want me to distribute the library in the original format, because he wanted to have the original library available only from his page but after I told him that I was using a modified format he said there were no problems. If you (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
|
(...) Well, I suppose nothing says that the URL and the title need match. If it's possible maybe try to dissociate the name Ldraw from the tool Ldraw? What I mean is newcomers to LCAD (like myself a few months ago) will want to go to that site as a (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License - again
|
|
(...) My only source of information about this is: (URL) haven't found any of the other 100 places where Leonardo Zide has talked about this. Fredrik (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
|
"James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:G5Mt7q.3vr@lugnet.com... (...) Organization' (...) would (...) Point taken. Any other opinions on this? -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (URL) (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
|
(...) No. Although I am -not- one of the CADheads, my vote would be to keep the organization name/URL to be LDraw.org, because it honors James Jessman. Yes, the focus of it _will_ change to LCAD programs (I'm one of the people who would like to see (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Rubber Black (was: New Part - 30187...) [DAT]
|
|
I cwould suggest something like this: 0 TEXTURE RUBBER <or matt, or whatever> < rubber parts in their colours > 0 TEXTURE END Don't forget that black is not the only colour of Lego rubber parts. THis can also be used for sloped parts textures: 0 (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
|
"Leonardo Zide" <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message news:3A3A7869.6F41C7....com.br... (...) That's true. There should be a gradual shift in naming to 'LCAD Organization' rather than LDraw.org, etc [1]. Eventually LCAD *will* change to (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
(...) If you mean the "ask for another license" clause, it's not unusual. I got this idea from GPL: 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
|
(...) This is something that confuses me, sometimes you say ldraw.org and sometimes LCAD organization. I'd rather see things going in the direction of an "LCAD organization", I know that currently LDraw accounts for most of what we call LCAD but I (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
"Steve Bliss" <steve.bliss@home.com> wrote in message news:htlk3tcv9idsvff...4ax.com... (...) thing (...) final (...) ROFL. :D Well, it was all ready to go last night, but some other unavoidable issues have come up, that we have worked out (Michael (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: License revision 1
|
|
(...) All the rest of you are exceptions, who have to be listed out, because you haven't written any parts. Actually, I should double-check that Jacob and Terry *don't* have their names in any part files. Anyway, I think I'm leaning against that (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: Rubber Black (was: New Part - 30187 Minifig Motorcycle with 3 Wheels Body)
|
|
(...) Personally I feel that just using color codes to establish color/texture is the best move. We have 512 (and we could use more if necessary) currently and how many of those are actually valid and in use? Using a separate statement for texture (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Ldraw.organization (was: License revision 1)
|
|
(...) I think it would be sufficient if we officially accept our somewhat anarchic approach. Basically, we could have (appoint, elect) specific officer positions, such as 'server admin', 'primary evangelist', 'parts library administrator', 'innocent (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Rubber Black (was: New Part - 30187 Minifig Motorcycle with 3 Wheels Body)
|
|
This is a separate reply, because this stuff needed to be XFUT lugnet.cad.dev. (...) Or we (that's an inclusive we, not just Paul, Steve and Franklin) should make a decision on what we want to do with "rubber black". There's definitely precedent for (...) (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dat.parts, lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | Re: POV difference in LDraw?
|
|
(...) LeoCAD can import LDraw files and exports 3DS and Wavefront files. Leonardo (24 years ago, 15-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
