Subject:
|
Re: LCD - LEGO Connection Database - Proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Jan 2002 17:49:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1126 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> > > LEGO is sensitive about the use of their name. [No different than GoB(tm)]
> >
> > GRIN. Um, yes, true. But of course there ARE other examples of using LEGO in
> > acronyms. Can you think of one off hand? (hint, you're typing in its general
> > direction)...
>
> I think in an acronym is different to them than using the name outright.
Well that's kind of my point. LCD is an acronym, just as LUGNET(tm) is. So I
don't see LCD standing for "LEGO(r) <mumble> <mumble>" as being bad or wrong
per se any more than that LUGNET stands for "LEGO Users Group NETwork" being
bad or wrong either... But if it is restricted in applicability to just
LDraw formatted stuff then sure, change it.
But I do not see this as the major discussion point around all this, do you?
Other matters seem more important, ne?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LCD - LEGO Connection Database - Proposal
|
| (...) LDraw is promoted as LDraw, LUGNET as LUGNET, etc... My concern was this was initially being promoted as LEGO Coordinate Database. If it is promoted as LCD then I agree the issue is not as important. I sent this to Tim in a private email (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LCD - LEGO Connection Database - Proposal
|
| (...) I dunno if this could apply or not, depends on how LEGO's format is written. (I don't know details) That's a question for the person who designed their format (and I doubt they'd discuss it here) ;-) (...) I believe its the same library, but a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
80 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
|
|
|
|
