 | | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Yes. If possible, I'd like to see a method by which we can revise the licence but have to get explicit agreement from every author. (...) I want the ability to evolve the library. What I'm worried about is an author pulling their part out of (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Wasn't there a question if an author agrees to distribute the part under a specific license? As in, if you change the license, do you need to get permission from the authors, etc? (...) Are we still allowing us to rename parts? What about (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
FTX and me are not getting along tonite. In the interests of not having words disappear I am posting this in plain text. Apologies for the dups and cancels. In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote: In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
This is post to sum up my ideas before I pop off on holiday for a few days. 1) Consider making the license apply to more than just parts or the parts library. This would allow things like documentation or software to be distributed too. 2) I would (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) The tiling shouldn't effect the stud logos. I'm not sure why I had them turned off; probably doing some performance measurements between current LDView and "next-gen LDView". I'll have to wait until I get home to verify for sure that they (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: WARNING: Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) Super! But, what happened to the stud logos? The tiling doesn't mess them up somehow, does it? That would look sooo good with bump mapped stud logos. ;^) Don (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Whoops! Didn't mean the warning part in the previous subject
|
|
(...) Thanks for the warning, Travis, I'll be cautious of your future ideas ;-) -Tim (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Whoops! Didn't mean the warning part in the previous subject
|
|
I was going to post the image directly in the message, and was going to put "WARNING: large inline image" in the subject. However, I changed my mind and put a thumbnail in instead. Sorry about any confusion over the WARNING part. --Travis (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | WARNING: Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) OK, I updated LDView (haven't released the update yet) to support images up to 4096x4096 via tiling, whether or not your video card can go that high. I have a sample generated at 2400x1800--and then resized to 800x600--that can be seen by (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Thanks Tim. The minimal requirements you speak of are incorporated in the Bylaws (in the goals of the organization section) already. Bylaws can be changed but I think anyone proposing such a change would be shouted down and rightly so. Because (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I'd like to add to this one. It became clear to me in a recent conversation that this goal should be more defined. When authors submit parts to LDraw.org, it should be under the understanding that LDraw.org will always distribute their parts (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) Oh yeah, and bringing in the near and far clip planes also helps, especially with a perspective projection. Orthographic projections give me less of a problem with the Z-bleeding. Maybe you should add an ortho mode. Don (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) I thought we fixed that. (2 URLs) (...) Nope. I have the same problem. Possibly even worse with antialiased lines. I give them an extra bump forward beyond the polygon offset. More bits in your Z buffer reduces the symptoms somewhat. (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
