 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Standing policies, yes, but programmatic enforcement, no. Too much in this arena relies on you and I applying those policies correctly in the parts updates. And there is always going to have to be some flexibility that needs admin judgement. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) That might be a good idea. We do have standing policies for most situations; everything from making minor fixes to using someone else's code in a new part to rearranging an existing file into new file(s) to entirely rewriting an existing part. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Skip the above. The C.A. can't take away any rights of the author, and shouldn't. Several people maintain webpages of 'their' parts, and they should be able to do so. If people want to distribute their own parts, more power to them (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Do you mean the entire "Contributor's agreement", or just the "auto-approve changes checkbox"? Steve (who almost certainly won't be accepting that checkbox) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) But that's not what the text says. The one real reason to have two agreements (AFAIK) is that we don't want to treat the library is simply an archive of all the individual files -- we want it to have a unique identity. So using 'file' and (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) That's hard to put into legalese, I fear, but I agree that's an important concept. I think we all agree once we have this fixed there won't be, and won't need to be, change at the macro level. How WOULD we go about codifying that idea? (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I haven't thought it properly through yet, but I would like to have some assurance that either the basic characteristics of the license will remain unchanged (for example through a fixed "human readable" version of the license) or that I as an (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I agree with Dan. As one of the more important people that need to accept the final resolution, I'd like to know exactly what you object to or what you think needs to be changed. -Orion (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Jacob - I think you understand these things a lot better than me. Could you explain your thoughts? (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) It could be for reasons as simple as the server being temporarily off-line. Greetings, Jacob (who doesn't think he'll accept the redistribution agreement) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I would hope that any changes made to a part file would include attribution to the original author(s). Perhaps this should be spelled out in the license? Other than this one little issue, I like what I see. Putting these two licenses into (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) In case we find a part that's broken or wrong, we are under no obligation to release it. -Orion (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I can't accept the nomination. I don't think I have the temperament required for such a position. For instance, if I don't get my way with the spacelaunch brick currently under review, I think I'm gonna cry. So instead, could I nominate Travis (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) What is the reason for requiring this clause in the licence? (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) There has been a lot of discussion on this already. We carefully considered all the discussion and decided that two licenses offer the best approach for maximum flexibility. The text of the posted draft license itself highlights a key thing (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) (URL) I can see no difference in the human readable summary, it's likely the differences are in the legal version. This seems a good an open license. (...) Could your explain your thinking behind why you believe this second license is (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Parts Tracker Page Style Updated
|
|
(...) Ooo, pretty. Thanks, Steve, this looks cool :-) -Tim (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Moving the License Forward
|
|
Everyone - First I want to offer the Steering Committee's apologies for the delay in moving this issue forward. We've spent some time discussing the license and now we are ready to present a proposed solution for comments and feedback. After talking (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !!
|
| |
| | May's Winners for LDraw.org's Model/Scene of the Month Contest
|
|
Congratulations to the winners of the May Model/Scene of the month contests: (URL) MOTM, Chris Parkinson, Masakari> (URL) SOTM, Bruno Kurth, 2-wide Land> -Orion (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.announce, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Heh, I forgot that part. I probably stuck it in there though, knowing me. For this one, I just re-used the nomination rules from last year. -Tim (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
