 | | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) The difference is that multisample AA only samples the texture once per pixel, while supersample samples the texture once per sample. This makes multi-sample AA significantly faster any time you're in a fill-rate limited situation. (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote: (snip) I need to go back through the post and read it more carefully before I respond in depth. However, quickly... Thanks for sharing another license draft, but we really *really* would like to get (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) What's the difference between supersample and multisample antialiasing? There was a setting in the control panel about some sort of ***sample antialiasing, but I was afraid to change it because it gave a sharp warning when I selected it. (...) (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) The technical detail is that LDView requires the video card/video driver to support the WGL_ARB_multisample OpenGL extension. The MX cards don't support that. (I think this is because they only support supersample antialiasing.) However, if (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) I have a 9700 Pro, and it works fine up to 2048x2048. However, it starts doing really odd things when I go higher (I'll have to look into that). What driver version do you have installed? (It shouldn't matter, but I can't think what else would (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote: [snip] (...) Just tacking on a note of agreement here. -Tim (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) If you can get the Full Screen Antialiasing (FSAA) to work then you've accomplished pretty much the same thing as the x3/shrink method. I only get "none" for an FSAA choice in the preferences dialog though. I'm not sure what minimum hardware (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) I've been fiddling with LDView and I can't seem to render images larger than 1020x688 (my screen resolution is 1024x768). Does this mean that I can't render images larger than my current screen resolution? What I did with LDGLite was render a (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I also can't understand the reason for two licenses. With one license ldraw.org and the community as a whole gain the same rights to modify/redistribute/buildupon the community provided library. The license described in (URL) I think be ideal (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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) !
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I see one problem with this. It would mean that files not moved into the new library couldn't be updated, short of being re-written from scratch. I don't think that's a good idea. Of course, maybe that already happens when authors can't be (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) 1. Download and install LDView 2.1 (if you don't already have it). 2. Run LDView, open any model, then set all the settings up to get the look you want for the contest. I would recommend enabling antialiased lines and FSAA (if your video card (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
One thing I touched upon a while ago that may be useful, is creating an entirely NEW library, with the same format, and only adding primitives and parts as authors give their consent to the new licence. This would allow the current "complete" (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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) !
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) now that LDRAW.org officials render all entries i have a question or 2 1 can the user submit camera angle coordinates? 2 what radiosity settings will u use 3 can a user specify color codes for the model (ie "257" = 90% transparent blue / rbgt (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) Have you tried ldview yet. I'd think you should be able to come up with a script that generates some real quality output. Travis gave some tips in a recent thread. (URL) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
I like to solicit ideas for the rendering style used in next month's Model of the Month contest. I'm so pleased with the way this month's renderings turned out that I'm seriously considering using LDGLite full time but I thought I'd get some input (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Because it is a bad idea. It requires that the parts authors put an enormous trust in those they sign over copyright to. (...) I have refused to do that for the GNU project and I will do the same for LDraw.org (but I don't think I have written (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report - 20 May 2004
|
|
(...) Sorry for the typo......... :/ (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Numbers Report - 20 May 2004
|
|
Stats for Unofficial Files 105 certified files. 162 files need admin review. 412 files need more votes. 415 have uncertified subfiles. 214 held files. Total Files: 1,308 Comparison with Prev. Report: 2004-05-20: 105 / 162 / 412 / 415 / 214 (1,308) (...) (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Licenses... some background
|
|
Longtime fans of the LDraw format and the LDraw system of tools know that this current discussion around licensing is by far NOT the first time the topic came up. The discussion is currently sort of disjointed in my personal view (and that of (...) (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) The only problem with that is getting permission from authors that have *already contributed*. Many are no longer contactable, and of those that are, there may be some that don't want their work owned by Ldraw.org. You'd effectively need to (...) (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Why dont we do what the Free Software Foundation does with the GNU project. Basicly, everyone wanting to contribute code signs something stating that they hand over copyright to GNU. We do the same thing, with gaurantees in the contract that (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) While this is true of the library as a whole, it isn't true of individual files. Even when an author gets a part officially into the library, I believe they are still the owner, and they're certainly the author. --Travis (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) There is a lot of misunderstanding about the general topic of copyrights. I strongly recommend that the SteerCo undertake the effort to learn more about copyrights, since copyright law is the fundamental underpinning of all redistribution (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) That would (as I understand things) be impossible from a legal point of view. (...) Maybe. But that would then require that all the parts authors formally transferred their copyright to LDraw.org. This is possible, but parts authors living in (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) All the individual parts files authors. I.e. you would have to get aproval from each individual parts file author. Jacob (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Yes. Except that "public domain" is a concept that doesn't exist outside USA. (...) If you send Steve Bliss an e-mail, where you tell him that he (as LDraw.org Parts Library Head Honcho) is free to choose which license your parts files are (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Introducing the 2004-2005 LDraw.org Steering Committee
|
|
Introducing the 2004-2005 LDraw.org Steering Committee It is our great pleasure to introduce ourselves as the first elected LDraw.org Steering Committee. Over the past few days, we have been settling into our roles, doing housekeeping, and orienting (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.org, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) I imagine we would define the author of the Parts Library as LDraw.org? The point for me is, parts authors are submitting their work towards the community effort. It makes much more sense to me that the community organization licenses out the (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Would it simplify things for part authors who don't care about the license to declare their parts to be public domain? Because I really don't want to be bothered wrestling over a license for the handful of files I had anything to do with. Don (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) The only blurry point I see with those is the clause: "Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author." Who is the author of the parts library? ROSCO (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Good point. Both of them are fine with me. I think I prefer the Attribution-ShareAlike license, if I have to make a choice between the two. It seems like if would be a good idea, if the parts library maintainers set up a poll among the parts (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) I know the license has been discussed for a long time, but to add my two cents; I'd really like to see the parts library use a Creative Commons license, specifically the Attibution-ShareAlike license ((URL)) or the plain old Attribution (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) The initial step is to transfer these parts file to a special pool which continues to be distributed under the existing (but rather muddy) conditions that the parts library until now has been distributed under. Second, somebody (responsible (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Do you have thoughts on how to deal with parts whose authors have been out of touch, and are unreachable? Any idea how many parts that affects, if say, we can't reach them and get them to agree to the license? -Tim (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) Yes it's deffinately there, I must have misread the page. I've tracked down the quote that was was looking for too :) "With LDraw-dot-org going more and more formal making sure that our hobby doesn't get ruled too much.", Willy Tschager. Peter (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) I removed the artilce form the front page as it is no longer needed. You can, however, access all the news articles via the News Archive link (you may have to click the See All link to get to the really old articles). -Orion (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
