|
|
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| Just for the record: IANAL (...) Mine. LDraw files are source code (at least according to the definition in the LGPL). And unless you consider rendering a specific kind of compilation, LGPL would not allow you to do anything useful with a parts (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) [snip] (...) I read the exact same clause and come to exactly the opposite conclusion. My reasoning is that because linking is something you do to code, not LDraw parts; the clause has no bearing to LDraw parts. Is my interpretation right, or (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) From (URL): »However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) Actually I beliee that this is the exact case where the LGPL differes from the GPL. Since the Parts 'library' will only be referecned as a library, I think that (if the LGPL were used on it,) it's license wouldn't pollute the license of the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) I doubt it. Going by what I've seen in the Open source programming environment, the file's original author is considered the copyright owner, even after someonelse makes a bug fix or some other tweak. If the change is big enough, (whole new (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Leaving Brand Retail
|
| As quite a few of you know, I've been working part time at the Woodfield LEGO store since it opened last October. During my time there, I had the joy of seeing many familiar LUGNET faces pop by, and even was able to meet a few new people as well. I (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.people, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) Another question: if Joe submits a new file, and later on Jane fixes it, how much IP does Jane really have on the file? More concretely, we're fairly confident the Jessiman's will agree to license all of James' files to the (new) library. Many (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) Well, that's been our M.O. so far. So if we continue to distribute files under that umbrella, we won't be in any worse shape than we are now. (...) Yes. Agreed. However, we can (and probably should) start labeling everything that is covered (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| All what follows is my opinion only. (...) authors "give up copyright". Let's not confuse PD with right of redistribution. Let's not confuse giving up copyright with right of redistribution. What I am suggesting is that by posting a part to the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) You are correct here, I should have used the term 'file' or 'work' instead of 'part'. From a copyright standpoint I mean 'work of an author'. (...) There are two ways to looks at this issue. 1) Get permission of all those involved and get them (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
|
