|
| |
|  
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
 | | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) They are? The proposed CA doesn't say that, and that's not (necessarily) its intent. The CA is about the author granting LDraw.org a distribution license, along with further protections. Now, maybe that's what we *should* be talking about -- (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) Well, it's not really voting about my copyright, it's voting about retroactively accepting changes to the agreement between myself and LDraw.org. My issue is the checkbox pretty much invalidates the entire 'making changes' section of CA. If a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| | Re: 2003-2004 LSC Annual Report
|
| (...) (snip) (...) I'd like to personally thank the 2003-2004 LDraw.org Standards Committee for their hard work over the last year on behalf of the community. I am sure I am not speaking just for myself when I say that it is appreciated! (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) (disclosure: I am not a lawyer. These are just the opinions of a semi-logical mind.) From reading the document, it appears as though the CA gives LDraw the authority to release the parts at all. LDraw has no formal agreement (e.g. a written (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| | License Question
|
| Let’s say that some well-meaning individual created a large number of DAT-based parts representing the bricks of LEGO-compatible brands, including quite a few of the more “basic” elements, such as the 2x4 brick, the 1x2 brick, the 2x8 plate, etc. (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) The text says 'library', not 'files' or 'contributions'. When the term 'library' is used in the CA, it should be discussing the entire library as a single entity. If that specific statement is meant to refer individual files, it should say (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| | Re: Variants of 4.5v / 12v train motors
|
| (...) Would you be able to take a critical look at the sizes of the connector studs and the holes in them. There is a suggestion that these differ between the versions designed to work with the old Blue 2-pin connectors ((URL) those which fit the (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.trains)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.791)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.790)
|
|
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.790)
|
|
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) Standing policies, yes, but programmatic enforcement, no. Too much in this arena relies on you and I applying those policies correctly in the parts updates. And there is always going to have to be some flexibility that needs admin judgement. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.790)
|
|
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) I would hope that any changes made to a part file would include attribution to the original author(s). Perhaps this should be spelled out in the license? Other than this one little issue, I like what I see. Putting these two licenses into (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.790)
|
|
| | Enhancement to Parts Tracker review mechanism
|
| Until now ldraw.org members with only "Submitter" privileges, have had no ability within the Parts Tracker to respond to comments or Hold votes posted by reviewers. This has now been resolved. The submitter of the most recent edition of a file on (...) (20 years ago, 23-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.790)
|
|
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) Understood. (...) That seems a little harsh to an author under this kind of situation ... 1) Person A submits part to parts tracker, agrees to CA. 2) Part has small issue with it preventing it from being approved quickly 3) Ldraw SteerCo (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.790)
|
|
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) That might be a good idea. We do have standing policies for most situations; everything from making minor fixes to using someone else's code in a new part to rearranging an existing file into new file(s) to entirely rewriting an existing part. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.790)
|
|
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) The entire "Contributor's agreement". If I accept the "Contributor's agreement" in its current form, I will probably also check the "auto-approve changes checkbox". Voting about my copyright doesn't make sense to me. Either I accept the risk (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| |
|
ldraw
(score: 0.790)
|
