 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Sorry, I was a bit too terse here. This refers to how we start. Do we have a way to migrate all the parts in, or do we have to get explicit recertification from each author of each and every part (many parts currently in the library hvae (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Sorry, I missed typed. I meant to say "If possible, I'd like to see a method by which we can revise the licence but not have to get explicit agreement from every author." I with Tim's above statments. -Orion (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I think I disagree here. One of the problems we have right now is when we implement the license, we will have to explicitly seek each author's approval. Some authors will be unreachable, which means we won't be able to gain their perimssion to (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
