 | | Numbers Report - 5 July 2004
|
|
Stats for Unofficial Files 169 certified files. 141 files need admin review. 460 files need more votes. 440 have uncertified subfiles. 212 held files. Total Files: 1,422 Comparison with Prev. Report: 2004-07-05: 169 / 141 / 460 / 440 / 212 (1,422) (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
It has been a full year since the creation of the LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC). Nominations are now open, elections will be held July 15. The LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) is responsible for maintaining semi-regular internal discussions (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Parts Tracker Page Style Updated
|
|
I've (finally) gone through the Parts Tracker pages, and updated the style to more closely resemble the page layout on the rest of ldraw.org. Please let me know if you find something I missed - or messed up! (URL) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | June MOTM/SOTM Update
|
|
Due to my work schedule and my visit to California for my brother's high school graduation, I couldn't find the time to properly setup the June MOTM/SOTM. Instead of doing a shoddy job, I'm going to cancel the June contests. I apologize for this and (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I don't know. I think when something is statically linked you can recover the original code with a disassembler. It's really still there in a different form. There's no way to disassemble a picture into the ldraw code without using the ldraw (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) From my recollection (and this is digging back, you made me think here) I went off of the LDraw.exe LICENSE.TXT. The clause I presumed gave permission to publish commercially was: -- USAGE PROVISIONS: Permission is granted to the user to use (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Perhaps the book authors could share some insight on this, because there are many books out there containing renderings. What legal hoops did they jump through in order to publish? Don (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
Steve said: (...) ... And Larry said: (...) Had to look up "tacitly": in a tacit manner; by unexpressed agreement; "they are tacitly expected to work 10 hours a day" And if I understand things correctly, you could argue that, but you'd be wrong :) (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) That depends on the license on the LDraw Parts Library and the LDraw file for the model/scene. (...) Exactly. (...) But since the _rendering_ of the DAT file _is_ a derivative work of the LDraw Parts Library, distributing the rendering may (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) If anybody has copyright to a _part_, it must by default be LEGO. But the copyright to a rendering of a part in one or a number of LDraw files is held jointly by all the involved parties (ignoring the difficult question of exactly how small (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I agree. I just don't think we've come up with a better solution yet. Hopefully someone clever will spot the one we've missed so far! The problem with one library is that, to be fair, it sort of feels like we can't just wing it and say all the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
What follows are my opinions, not vetted with the rest of the committee... (...) Yes. Personally I strongly agree that there ought to be baseline never to be changed conditions.. and that they ought to be named off. (note: that conflicts with using (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I'm not philosophically opposed to an old/new library, but it would be awkward to administer. Especially if we suddenly started restricting ourselves from modifying the uncertified files. We'd start spending a lot of time explaining to people (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, "Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote: [snipped tons] (...) Sorry I'm coming late to this party... At some point in this thread, Larry stated something about 'decoupling' the two licenses. To some (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) How are parts individually copyrighted? Actually, what exactly is a 'part'? Is a shock absorber a single part, or an assembly of several parts? How about a minifig torso (as they exist in lego sets)? If you want to talk about have to copyright (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I can appreciate the idea, but I doubt that you will be able to enforce that through a license for the parts library. Also, it is not always possible to implement a two-way converter between a pair of formats. Jacob (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) The spirit of what I'm trying to get at is this: if someone wants to read LDraw into a proprietary format, shouldn't they also write LDraw? Taking an open format and importing it into a closed format, without a way to write back to the open (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) The GPL does not require re-submission to the original source. (...) You don't have to send the changes back to the maintainers, you only have to make the source of the changes freely available to everyone, you're even allowed to charge a (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) Sorry - my mistake. (...) Ok, yes, that was my point - you can't keep the changes to yourself, you have to publish them, so that they could (in theory) be merged with the original library. (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) You are corrrect. Re-submission is not required. Library changes only need to be published. [snip] (...) Agreed. It is bunch of work for just about everybody involved. However, the result is typically better than if you go off on your own. (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
