 | | Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
Here's the CA v2. If you have criticism, please also offer a proposed solution. Summary of changes: - Added a 33% majority for passage instead of a simple majority - A general reordering and rewording of the entire document. The LDraw.org Steering (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee election now open
|
|
(...) Why does it say this at the top of the ballot? "You are not authorized. Please contact the webmaster if you have doubt." That's somewhat confusing. Does it mean my votes don't count? Don (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | LDraw.org Standards Committee election now open
|
|
The election is now underway. For more details please see this article: (URL) If you have any questions or concerns please contact a Steering Committee member. Election will run for a week. Good luck to all candidates! Larry Pieniazek for the (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) And yet you appear to be trying to write one, the contributor agreement. Although I don't have any particular experience in writing licenses, I have done a fair bit of work with them, at one point my company required me to read and understand (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 2003-2004 LSC Annual Report
|
|
LSC Annual Report August 2003 - July 2004: During this period of time the LSC handled the following issues to completion: - A location was established on the ldraw.org website listing all of the current LDraw library updates. This page is script (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
