 | | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I did think of Anton Rave's library and LGEO but there aren't a lot of models which use exclusively parts from LGEO (I have never used Anton's library). Sure you can provide a counter-example and of course LDraw.org has no control over renders (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) This is also not true. BlockCAD has its own part library, not at all connected to the LDRAW library, but BlockCAD *can* save a model in the LDRAW format, thereby making it possible to render a BlockCAD model with the LDRAW compatible programs. (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) This is definitely wrong! There is nothing unique with the LDRAW library. It doesn't have a special place in the universe - it's just another information collection. My BlockCAD program can load *some* LDRAW model files and render a picture (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Actually there is. Anton Raves' library comes immediately to mind. Using that you're not using any information from the LDRAW parts, only the placement information in the model file. And his is not the only library of Lego parts in the (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote: [snip-snap] (...) the steerco has considered the option to change the license but considering that we weren't able to track down 18 people last time (URL) (we are still 33 parts behind in the rewrite (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) don, you wouldn't have a model file at all without the parts library. at least not without extreme effort because of the missing visual feedback. I'll give you some codes: CM051P09.dat, HF300P09.dat, CM060P14.dat, CM053P03.dat, CM250P02.dat (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) If you are referring to the non-pursuit section of the readme it is most definitely in accord with the license. As you say a license is only as good as its enforcement but stating a policy of enforcement does not change the license. As an (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I agree. The way the readme puts it is not in accord with what the license requires. Furthermore, because there is a disclaimer in readme that it is not a license, that whole bit can and should be ignored and only the license followed. If (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I agree with the ethical imperative argument. There are plenty of old laws on statute books that no-one follows or expects to follow but are still there. Either way, ethical decisions are made on an individual basis (including the (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) In that case I agree it wouldn't be a derivative work. I am becoming more and more convinced that an MPD isn't actually a derivative work. (...) If people are willing to go to the effort of making or using an alternate part library in order to (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Sorry, that doesn't work for me. The license describes how someone must behave; lack of prosecution for non-compliance doesn't erase the ethical imperative to follow the agreement. And, since the non-commercial disclaimer is not actually part (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Actually I'm fairly certain the folks at Lego could easily devise a way to import a model file into LDD on a PC with NONE of the official Ldraw files installed. They could then generate a rendering in LDD and publish that on the internet, (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I figured you were which is why I called it unfair. Without the library the render cannot exist. Without the library the LDraw file is just a meaningless list of transformations and codes. (...) Which is precisely why we are stating we will (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Actually I was thinking of the LDraw library as the chisel(s), and to be honest, I don't understand why it's an unfair analogy. It just seems obvious to me. But anyhow, look, I like Ldraw files and renders. I want to see more of them. And (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) That is not a fair analogy. Arguably POVray (or ldglite or ldview) is the chisel but the parts are a necessary part of the final work. There is no way to use a typical LDraw file without the parts library to render a scene. (...) You haven't (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I disagree. A sculpture may contain obvious marks from a distinctive chisel, but is not a derivative of that chisel. Now if you make a new chisel based on the distinctive chisel, that's a derivative work. (...) Again, I disagree. We clearly (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) In the case of model files I agree it is muddy however a model file means little without the parts to use it. If people wish to try to sell LDraw files without an attribution they are welcome to do so and you are probably right that LDraw.org (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Wow! In my opinion, that's an extremely poor interpretation of "derivative works". Consider the model file. It most likely contains no actual bits of the LDRAW library. It simply contains references to the parts in the library, by names like (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Precisely. Tim (18 years ago, 3-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) So, basically, the licence means you need to credit LDraw whenever you render/create a model from it, but SteerCo aren't bothered unless its for commercial use? (18 years ago, 2-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
