|
|
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) Not a bad idea I guess. Not a bad idea at all. I'm comfortable with meanwhile making it clear by signature though. (basically, if a post is signed with all 5 of our names, it's official, else it's not) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| What follows is my personal reply not offical position of SteerCo. (...) I agree. We missed this goal, and it is indeed important. (...) True. And sort of false. Sometimes (take the change in the 9V train wheelset recently) there is a need to have (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote: snip (...) Larry: I think you missed an important user goal. The user wants assurance that parts will not disappear from the library when it is updated. The user has typically invested a great deal (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) The license draft included in my post was merely done to demonstrate that the language needed to license the people described is possible. I've condensed most of my points, and some new ones, into a new post that I've posted in reply to the (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
|
