 | | 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)
|
