 | | Re: License Question
|
|
(...) Well, my hope is twofold: I don't want the LDraw crew to have to accomodate my project under the official LDraw License, and I don't want to have to restructure my project to accommodate the official LDraw License! I don't expect it to be a (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Question
|
|
(...) This is just me speaking, no official standing in this post, but isn't this process very much like the "clean room reverse engineering" process used to circumvent IP by reinventing from scratch based just on the specs? Also these parts don't (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | License Question
|
|
Let’s say that some well-meaning individual created a large number of DAT-based parts representing the bricks of LEGO-compatible brands, including quite a few of the more “basic” elements, such as the 2x4 brick, the 1x2 brick, the 2x8 plate, etc. (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what the history is here, but what happens to good parts that were almost completed, and need a few minor fixes, but the original author has no interest in it anymore? Should the part just sit in the PT forever? Should it be (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I was using Steve's word, but I believe we both meant it in the geeky sense of "should not exist", and not "is maliciously placed". Dan (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I think the key word here is 'active'. If the requirement is that some percent of the ACTIVE authors actually are for a change, wouldn't that work for both of you? Dan (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Thank you, Travis. I humbly accept the nomination. /Tore (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Quoting Yoda, "Hard to see, the future is". The ability to change the ShareAlike license is to hedge our bets against unforseen issues. If you are omnipotent (should I call you Q?), then you can see all forseeable issues and can (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Willy, I know how strong your feelings are about this particular subject but some don't feel this way. Is there some compromise that will allow both sides to be happy? -Orion (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) there is no way in getting me to agree to this clause if this also impleis that others may modify my work before it got certified. to make it clearer: no fixes to parts I submitted for the first time. (...) once if got official they might do (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Many thx for the confidence. However, considering myself still a LDraw-toddler I don't think to be fit enough to play with the big boys. I'm going to have to respectfully decline. w. (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) positive (...) And I maintain, if there are not enough authors still active at a time this potential situation were to come up, It could be near impossible to make the change. If there were a situation where the change was needed, and there (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I graciously accept the nomination. Kevin (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Candidate summary (was Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
I have prepared a summary of who is nominated, and who has accepted, declined or not spoken up yet. (URL) (via email directly to me please) welcomed. If you see your name as not yet spoken up, go ahead and do so via reply to your nominator's post. I (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Why would there be any confusion? ;-) (...) I hear they have a nice gene pool there ... -Tim (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) My mistake. I realized this after I submitted the post. -Orion (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Thank you, I accept. Note, however, that my first name is *Lars*, not to be confused with Larry Pieniazek :-) /Lars (off to Norway for week ;-)) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) 'Evil' is a bit too strong of a word here, and I think it's an unfair labeling. The checkbox doesn't say that the author (not user) forsees the changes they're agreeing to, rather it says that they put their trust in the SteerCo to guide the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
Hi Steve, In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss wrote: <SNIP> (...) <SNIP> (...) <SNIP> (...) Thank you for nominating me. But because of dramatic missing time, I would like to decline. I believe I was no big help the past year, and therefor (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I accept. --Travis Cobbs (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) snip (...) I Andrew Allan accept this nomination Andrew... (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I think that's a good idea, and it makes sense to me. Abstain becomes not exactly no (since it doesn't count against the measure), instead it means "I need more information" - which is a valid response, IMO. Oh, and I agree that the checkbox (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Another thought - don't treat the 'no responses' and 'abstain' as identical. The actual abstain votes could be counted toward a total count, and the ayes would have to exceed a given fraction of that total. For example, we could require a 33% (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Well, it's not really voting about my copyright, it's voting about retroactively accepting changes to the agreement between myself and LDraw.org. My issue is the checkbox pretty much invalidates the entire 'making changes' section of CA. If a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I like it. :) That's almost like what I asked for before (URL) Steve (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I like that. I'll tkae that into consideration with the new draft I'm writing. -Orion (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) That kind of makes sense. I'm writing a new CA draft and I'll take that into consideration. -Orion (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I admit my turnout values may have been optimistic :) But I still feel that a greater than 50.00000something percent positive vote ought to be needed to move away from something as good as the ShareAlike license. (...) What, at the risk of (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Wouldn't putting something in the CA, with the whole section explaining how the license can be changed in the future, something like this: While the library's license can be changed in the future using this procedure, any new license will have (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I agree with the timeout, and that the authors need to maintain their email addr on record updated. I'm not sure we should discount Peter's note though, that right now we're setting up a system that by default will accept change - that is not (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) OK - this is a timing thing - we can fine tune the qualification criteria. What I was trying avoid was people who have expressed a desire to author parts, yet never got around to doing so, having a strong influence in the distribution license. (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Whilte you make a good argument, I think you're leaving out something. It's the author's responsibility to maintain an address where LDraw.org can contact them on organizational business. Plus, LDraw.org announces important things like this (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) No reponse isn't a response ;) but you cover it below in how they become abstentions. (...) I'm not sure I agree with a simple majority has enough weight behind it given the importance of the outcome of the vote. Imagine this outcome Abstains (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Understood. (...) That seems a little harsh to an author under this kind of situation ... 1) Person A submits part to parts tracker, agrees to CA. 2) Part has small issue with it preventing it from being approved quickly 3) Ldraw SteerCo (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) The entire "Contributor's agreement". If I accept the "Contributor's agreement" in its current form, I will probably also check the "auto-approve changes checkbox". Voting about my copyright doesn't make sense to me. Either I accept the risk (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Thanks for the nomination. I accept. Play well, Jacob (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I am uncomfortable with the specific phrasing and reference to the Parts Tracker. Consider the situation[1] where author Alpha creates a part and publishes it on the Web. Author Beta then contacts Alpha and asks that it be submitted to the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) The text says 'library', not 'files' or 'contributions'. When the term 'library' is used in the CA, it should be discussing the entire library as a single entity. If that specific statement is meant to refer individual files, it should say (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I accept my nomination and offer three more: Lar Hassing (L3P) Andrew Allen (Mac Brick Cad) expressed a desire to run for the LSC so I nominate him. In case Don's nom doesn't count, Travis Cobbs (LDView) -Orion (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
I messed up in my first nomination, and replied to a reply. So here is a direct reply nominating the following (with a qualification listed): Tore Eriksson (authored a boatload of official parts) Will Tschager (authored quite a few more than two (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) Well, I nominated 7 people for the SteerCo, but those had to all be in separate posts to satisfy the nomination rules ;-). The fact that I nominated so many people there was the reason I didn't respond to the nomination request here when I (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I suspect this post was missed due to the US-holiday weekend. (...) Since no one has made any nominations, or volunteered, I'd like to nominate the current members of the LSC, in its entirety: - Orion Pobursky, parts author, LDraw.org (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
(...) But you *can* watch it anyway! Got the main page and choose 'Community - Contests', then you have 'View the current month's contest submissions' where you can click MOTM, and see all the pictures even after voting (I should know, I have askeed (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
(...) I'm running a current CVS build of LDGLite on Windows XP. I did the rendering on my laptop which is a Dell Inspriron 600m with an ATI Radeon Mobility 9000. My graphics driver is slightly out of date since the newest one causes funky things to (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
(...) Heh, I noticed some artifacts in the ldglite renderings as well. On the lawnmower, I can clearly see the fat rounded line end points didn't get drawn. Some opengl implementations don't support it, most notably the MESA offscreen driver. What (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
(...) Yes, I'll have time this weekend for posting properly but here are the winners: MOTM: Chris Parkinson - "Masakari" SOTM: Bruno Kurth - 2-wide land -Orion (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
(...) Was there a winner for May ? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
(...) I just voted for the model of the month and as such can NOT access the page anymore. However, can the person who modeled the passanger train bridge please email me. I'm interested in getting the LDraw file for you if possible. That was one (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
(...) I used LDGLite. I was planning on using LDView but I had to some problem getting the renderings exactly the way I wanted. -Orion (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
(...) Great to see it up again. Just one question: which program was used for this month's model renderings? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
(...) Oops, thanks. I fixed it. -Orion (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
(...) Cool beans, Orion. FYI - I think you inserted the wrong title on one of the SOTM images. 'Atomium' appears twice -- on two different scenes. -Tim (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Voting now open for July's MOTM and SOTM contests
|
|
The voting for the July Model of the Month and Scene of the Month contests is now open at LDraw.org. Visit the (URL) voting page> to cast your vote. I apologize again for the cancellation of last month's contest. -Orion (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.announce, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Celebrates 5 Years!
|
|
(...) Youngster! How about another 50 years! All kidding aside, congratulations and thanks to the community, who have made this milestone possible. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Celebrates 5 Years!
|
|
LDraw.org celebrates five years of being online today. The project began in early 1999 and launched to the public on July 7 of that year, almost two years after James Jessiman passed away. Since then, both the site and the community have grown leaps (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.org, lugnet.publish) !
|
| |
| | 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)
|
