 | | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) Two things here are wrong: 1) copyrights can be transferred. they can be assigned or liscenced, but the original copyright holder is always the copyright holder. when people sign away thier copyrights, they are typically signing a liscence (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) (disclosure: I am not a lawyer. These are just the opinions of a semi-logical mind.) From reading the document, it appears as though the CA gives LDraw the authority to release the parts at all. LDraw has no formal agreement (e.g. a written (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 2nd LSC: Election Results
|
|
The second LSC vote has terminated. The 2004-2005 LDraw.org Standards Committee is: Jacob Sparre Andersen Steve Bliss Tore Eriksson Lars Hassing Orion Pobursky There were a total of 16 respondents. -Tim (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) I'm not really sure what the CA says at this point in time. I was basing my statement off of the "Moving the LIcense Forward" message that Tim posted. (URL) In short, Tim stated that the both a CCAL (Createive Commons Attribution License) and (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) They are? The proposed CA doesn't say that, and that's not (necessarily) its intent. The CA is about the author granting LDraw.org a distribution license, along with further protections. Now, maybe that's what we *should* be talking about -- (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) I honestly think that the CA immediately violates the CCAL (Creative Commons Attribution License) section 4a and is, thus, intrinsically unenforcable due to section 7a. Please read my other response to Orion the more complete response. (...) (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) Orion: I'm not a lawyer, but I'll give you my opinion for what it is worth... In my opinion, the problem is that LDraw.Org has no legal authority to change a part license unless it owns the copyright to the part. Here is the relevant verbiage (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) I am not quite sure that is true (although I can argue for it in terms of Danish contract law). (...) It depends (the usual answer, when you start discussing legal problems). The problem I can see with the CA is related to the way it gives (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) You make some very good points. I do have one question though: Isn't getting the Author to agree to the change procedure the same as them giving to consent to change? In other words, I give permission to change the license if the follow (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) Orion: The Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) is irrevocable (read section 7.) You can not lose a part that has been released under CCAL. The original author is free to stop distributing the original work (in this case a part), but (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
(...) The CA really isn't a license in the traditional since. It's intended to be a codification of the current way we run acceptance of contributions (i.e. the status quo in words) with a little explanitory text thrown in and a procedure for (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
I've been away the past week, hence my lack of contribution until now... What problem does the CA solve? Since all of the parts are individually released under a creative commons attribution license, there is nothing to prevent LDraw.Org (or me for (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
|
Here's a link to Version 2 and the follow on discussion: (URL) version 3 of the CA. Again, if you have criticism, please also offer a solution if warrented. Changes: - Got rid of the "No Response" option. This is now incorporated into the text of (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Sessions @ SIGGRAPH
|
|
(...) As far as I know this are accessible to everyone, from the lowest cost pass on up. -Orion (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.events, lugnet.loc.us.ca.la, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LDraw Sessions @ SIGGRAPH
|
|
(...) Cool, do you know if either of these sessions are accessable with the "Exhibits Plus" registrations? I'd like to save a few hundred bucks :) Take care, Gary (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.events, lugnet.loc.us.ca.la, FTX)
|
| |
| | LDraw Sessions @ SIGGRAPH
|
|
LDraw.org will host two back-to-back Birds of a Feather sessions at (URL) SIGGRAPH 2004> this year. Last year was LDraw.org's first year participating in SIGGRAPH. LDraw activities included an activity area at a LEGO fan booth and an introductory (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jul-04, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.cad, lugnet.events, lugnet.loc.us.ca.la, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) I'd like a no-cost restriction. In other words, anything covered can be distributed for free. This doesn't mean you can't charge, it just means that you don't have to charge. Or maybe all this is implied by the above? Do we need to explicitly (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) Yes, you're right, a combo of 1 & 2 should cover 3. When I was trimming so much out of your license I should have been more careful in adding bits :) Can anyone think of anything that ought to be in 'Base Level' of rights ? Peter (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) <snip> I like the rest of your comments so I've snipped them out. I do have a qustion on the below. (...) Isn't 3 redundant and cover by the 1? -Orion (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
Here is my take on this second version of the license Peter (...) And you've changed the first EndUser license from Creative Commons Share Alike License [1] to Creative Commons Attribute License [2] I presume this was because of the ShareAlike (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) Thanks! Maybe even crosslink, with the first post in the continued tree pointing (with an explicit label) back to the root of the previous tree too. (...) Yes! (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) Very good idea! (...) And it helps future readers when the linkage is spelled out explicitly. Steve (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: 2003-2004 LSC Annual Report
|
|
(...) (snip) (...) I'd like to personally thank the 2003-2004 LDraw.org Standards Committee for their hard work over the last year on behalf of the community. I am sure I am not speaking just for myself when I say that it is appreciated! (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) I wish 100 was a user selectable option, or an option by group or something. But I don't know enough server internals to know if that's feasible. (...) One of the primary ways that I do LUGNET research (and the way I used to do the research on (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) It would seem the general concensus that we need Licensing, so we need a license, even if it is hard to do. Agree? (...) Great. WHen you point out an issue with the license it is greatly appreciated that you provide an alternate solution to (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
