 | | Re: New LDraw Contest: POTM – Part Of The Month
|
|
(...) niels, what do you think content managers are for? voting will be of course a piece of cake! just like MOTM/SOTM. luckily I've already started to set up a ballot and luckily I've got already some entries - have a look: (URL) cannot vote yet (...) (18 years ago, 27-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: New LDraw Contest: POTM – Part Of The Month
|
|
This is a really great idea... But I find it a little difficult to see how you can participate unless you're one of the small handfull of reviewers with a constant level of high activity: If you aren't paying really close attention to the PT on a (...) (18 years ago, 27-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Official launch of the LDraw POTM - Part Of The Month contest
|
|
The LDraw Administration Team officially launches the POTM – Part Of The Month contest for LDraw Part Authors. It is no news that programmers get most of the spotlight and little goes to "the unsung heroes of the LDraw CAD world" - this contest (...) (18 years ago, 25-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.announce) !
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
|
(...) guys, before speculation grow wild I'll take the whole thing back to the steerco. thx for any input - though I have to admit that some posts go further than my wildest dreams ever did. as far as I understand the license both license files have (...) (18 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
|
(...) I wonder whether a model file really qualifies as a "collective work" under this definition since an LDR file doesn't actually contain the parts definitions, only references to them. (Unless of course, the external parts definitions are (...) (18 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
|
(...) This is crazy talk. People sign paintings, but nobody is ever gonna staple a note on the back of a painting that says, "This painting was created with ACME brand paints and brushes." Please don't insert any such crazy demand in the ldraw (...) (18 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
|
(...) While rendered images are Derivative Works, I do not think you would have to add anything such as a copyright notice to them. The language of the CALicense.txt paragraph 4.2 says to the extent reasonably practicable or at a minimum where you (...) (18 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
|
(...) All of the parts authors would have to agree to that, because (and my knowledge is limited so if I mistake any assumptions let me know) the copyright of the part file seems to be held by the parts author not the LDraw Parts Library or any (...) (18 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
|
(...) There is one significant difference between LDraw and Photoshop in that you pay for the right to use Photoshop without giving credit. That said I don't think we need to vandalise our images to put the credit in but I'm not completely averse to (...) (18 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
|
(...) In publishing, that type of info is usually contained in a colophon, the use of which is sadly fading from popularity. Some few web sites include this level of detail in their "About" section. I agree it would be nice to see attribution in (...) (18 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
