 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) Currently LDraw.org has control once it is submitted, so the licence should be agreed to upon submission. You could set it up so authors only have to agree once a file is certified, before including it in the official library, (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I think this is a PT policy issue and not a license issue. (...) Per the CA, upon submission to LDraw.org. -Orion (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) All humor aside, is this really a license issue, or a parts tracker policy issue? I know this has been a big issue in the past and I don't want to ignore it, but I'm not sure it is a license issue. It in some ways asks the question of when (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I won't burden steve with work, but two simple checkboxes at the PT's submit page saying: # Be aware that by touching my parts you will have to face the entire italian mafia and end up in nice brand new concrete boots # I'm not Willy, fix them (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I think you might be on to something. What's a good definition of ACTIVE? Some ideas I had: a) did activity x within the last y time periods (x could be any of authored, reviewed, participated in a discussion or other) or b) responded to the (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
