|
 | | 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: 0.795)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| Just for the record: IANAL (...) Mine. LDraw files are source code (at least according to the definition in the LGPL). And unless you consider rendering a specific kind of compilation, LGPL would not allow you to do anything useful with a parts (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.795)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.795)
|
|
| | 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: 0.795)
|
|
| | Re: Questions On ldconfig.ldr (Was: colours.txt -> LDraw-org Official Part Updates!)
|
| (...) A = alpha (transparency) DR, DG, DB, DA = dithered RGB,A. If RGB = D(RGB), then the color is solid. If DA=0, the color is transparent. Otherwise, the color is dithered and/or translucent. (...) Actually, that kind of information should be set (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.795)
|
|
| | 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: 0.794)
|
|
| | 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: 0.794)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.794)
|
|
| | 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: 0.794)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.794)
|
|
| | 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: 0.794)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.794)
|
|
| | 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: 0.794)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.794)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) From my recollection (and this is digging back, you made me think here) I went off of the LDraw.exe LICENSE.TXT. The clause I presumed gave permission to publish commercially was: -- USAGE PROVISIONS: Permission is granted to the user to use (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.794)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.794)
|
|
| | 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: 0.794)
|
|
| | Re: Blender LDraw support
|
| (...) Well, I'm a bit further along now. No MPD support yet, but it'll be easy to add. It now supports hierarchical loading with piece recognition, loading even the Masakari model in a tolerable amount of time. In the process I noticed not all parts (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.794)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) If anybody has copyright to a _part_, it must by default be LEGO. But the copyright to a rendering of a part in one or a number of LDraw files is held jointly by all the involved parties (ignoring the difficult question of exactly how small (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.794)
|
|
| | Re: License Intent
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, "Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote: [snipped tons] (...) Sorry I'm coming late to this party... At some point in this thread, Larry stated something about 'decoupling' the two licenses. To some (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.794)
|
