|
| |
|  
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
 | | Re: License - again
|
| (...) I thought we were close to having the right mods in a previous draft. (...) In view of the implications contained in *this*: (URL) w.r.t. designing your own custom sets for TLC to manufacture for you... I think it is *extremely* important to (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Right. Now you're asking the right question. I don't know the answer. (...) True. For instance me. But if a workable royalty scheme and a searchable catalog were introduced, I think I'd be designing like mad and putting one after another up (...) (24 years ago, 6-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | ldglite 0.7.2
|
| Yet another version of ldglite is available. I'm up to version 0.7.2 now. The new version incorporates a few changes suggested here. I forgot exactly what they were though. Sorry. The other major enhancements are as follows: I double buffered the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | Re: License - again
|
| (...) Right. And that's my problem with GPL in a nutshell. It leaks into stuff. Now, we've reasonably outlined how the parts license doesn't leak into stuff like published designs, renderings, instruction sets, etc. But if licensing the parts (...) (24 years ago, 12-Dec-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.930)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.929)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.929)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.929)
|
|
| | 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)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.929)
|
