 | | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) Understood. (...) Agreed. (...) As long as people understand the trade-offs. Adding redistribution restriction clauses is tricky and hard to get right. Frequently people can work around them. (...) It is quite possible, although I doubt that (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) It is my understanding of the GPL that no such re-submission is required. As long as you agree to the GPL terms and give appropriate credit to the original author, you can publish your mods as a separate work (or upgrade) under the GPL. (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) I agree that GPL might not be the right license to use here - I was just using it as an example of how the "extension" problem might be dealt with, as far as the license goes. Of course that we would always want the LDraw format to be the most (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) (For those of you who do not know, GPL=Gnu Public License.) GPL is one strategy. I prefer an innovate over litigate strategy. The GPL is complex and in certain critical areas extremely vague. The GPL attempts to mandate innovation by requiring (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) Wouldn't this problem be solved by the GPL approach, where any modifications made have to be re-submitted to the original library? This way, yes, you can make your cool changes, and sell them, but you have to send the patches back to the (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) It is very hard to define what commerical vs. non-commercial use is as the examples above demonstrate. One of the best ways to ensure that part authors do not feel "ripped off" is to ensure that the library is alwasys freely (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
I have to agree (and I know as a non-part author myself other than pathetic attempts which never saw the light of day by point will be held in less regard than those of actual offical part authors') that all parts should be open source. Not that (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) As a parts author who is likely to go inactive to the future (parts authoring, I've noticed, comes in spurts), I'd like to see the following: License dictates that any future changes need author approval. A majority of authors approving is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) So exactly how would someone release a rendering in complience with open source ? The DAT file associated with the render is not subject to the open source rules (since it is not a derivative work but merely references the library as a tool) (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) That would be great - but are you going to ask them also to distribute the latest copy of the library from their site? Or on any of the media they distribute? Is that something we want? The answer might be yes, but I don't think it should be. (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
