 | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) Good suggestion given the way LUGNET is set up now. My main reason for posting revisions in the same thread is so the discussions following the various revisions can be linked. But, you are right, when it grows to over 100, then it becomes (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) I'd like to request that future revisions be posted in a new thread. It would be easier to follow discussions that way. I'm making this request primarily because this thread has grown to over 100 messages. But it really applies to any "request (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
Some of my points are relatively minor/subtle, but it's better to bring them up now. (...) Instead of "parts", I would prefer "work" or some other term that's relatively generic. Not all files are actually part files -- besides the sub-part files (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee election now open
|
|
(...) I've already handled Don's issue. If anyone else has problems, please contact me directly. -Orion (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw.org Standards Committee election now open
|
|
(...) Were you logged in at the time? Try it if you're logged in. I am assuming you're an org member already so the delay part shouldn't apply... If you still get the error, please send a mail to one of us with full details of each URL you clicked, (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
