 | | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Strictly speaking, you need to reply to Tim's original post to actually nominate. Steve (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I don't follow but see below (...) I think that: a,b,d are covered by the CA "no obigation" clause c is covered by the "Author grants permission to other authors to modify their work" clause but I agree that a rewording may be in order (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) True. (...) I think the "in perpetuity" phrase above fills this (...) That's good. (...) I think this is good but others might balk at the non-specificness of terms (...) The fist paragraph of the agreement defines "Author" as anyone who (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
BTW, for everything I wrote earlier in this thread, c/Name:/Author:/. Thanks. (...) I'm open to more programmatic enforcement, but I'm not seeing what that would be like. For this discussion, I'd be happy if there is mention that attribution (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Speaking personally [1]: For the initial CA we should contact everyone who's got Submit rights, plus anyone named in a Name: line for whom we have contact details. New users should be asked to accept the CA as part of them getting Submit (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
