|
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) I'd like to add to this one. It became clear to me in a recent conversation that this goal should be more defined. When authors submit parts to LDraw.org, it should be under the understanding that LDraw.org will always distribute their parts (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
| |
|  
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| I have to agree (and I know as a non-part author myself other than pathetic attempts which never saw the light of day by point will be held in less regard than those of actual offical part authors') that all parts should be open source. Not that (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| I think that we shouldnt say "you cant distribute the library and charge for it" but instead do what e.g. GPL does and allow selling it but with the licence (which includes the right to freely redistribute the covered works) applying to it (so if I (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) As a parts author who is likely to go inactive to the future (parts authoring, I've noticed, comes in spurts), I'd like to see the following: License dictates that any future changes need author approval. A majority of authors approving is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) revise the (...) Yes, we're putting a lot of effort into getting this right. So, there shouldn't be any forseeable _major_ changes. To cite one example, IP law is continuously evolving; there may come a time when a change is required due to a (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) 1) That is Red Hat's business model, but not always or exclusively. For example, Red Hat used to make a product named MetroX (I can't remember if it replaces XFree86 or a window manager), and buying a Red Hat CD gave you the right to install (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) Maybe there's a need for a Lugnet user "LDraw.org SteerCo" so members of the SteerCo don't have to continue posting such disclaimers. Maybe limit posting range to CAD tree (maybe even ldraw tree?) and maybe announce. ROSCO (Added (...) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) I can't see the reason for this. Why shouldn't any user of the parts files have the same rights as LDraw.org? What special permissions does LDraw.org need, which it would be problematic to grant to all the users? Play well, Jacob (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) While I wouldn't like that, I'm not sure we really need to prevent it. OS software seems to do ok with allowing people to profit - the assumption is that if you use the code to profit, you'll probably make improvents to it, which (under OS (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) This is a tough one Dan. Before becoming a member on the SteerCo, I never gave licensing much thought, but I'm getting up to speed now. There are a number of issues about licensing as wel can tell by the many conversations from the past and (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) I'm extremely adverse to a future SteerCo having the ability to change the terms of the EndUser license at will, especially after we're putting all this effort into getting it correct now. For an example, could the SteerCo give some examples (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) I think I disagree here. One of the problems we have right now is when we implement the license, we will have to explicitly seek each author's approval. Some authors will be unreachable, which means we won't be able to gain their perimssion to (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) <snip> I've taken the chance to read the threads mentioned earlier in this thread. And I've made a version of the license (based on the previous Steve Bliss version) that handles both author->ldraw.org requirements and author->EndUser (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| FTX and me are not getting along tonite. In the interests of not having words disappear I am posting this in plain text. Apologies for the dups and cancels. In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote: In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | License Intent
|
| Vision As promised previously, the Steering Committee would like to share our thoughts on licensing goals. We think it's important that any license, copyright, trademark, trade dress or other legal construction be done in the spirit of the overall (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX) !
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) Well first of all there are different things being granted. An author grants rights to a particular part (each time he or she uploads that part), not the entire library. The user gets rights granted to the entire library as a whole. However, (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.354)
|
