 | | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) hi anders, the readme is nothing than a human readable version of the legal text (which in the end tells us that lawyers are not human) and it is basically a copy of this: (URL) (the steerco haven't written it), we (the 2006/2007 steerco) (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Now this is more along the lines of what I'd consider a derivative work according to the license, but only if their part file library actually includes ldraw primitive files, or text copied from the parts or primitive files. If they just (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) It's quite condescending to express the view that alternative libraries are created/used just 'in order to avoid writing ...'. All of those alternatives were in existance long before the 'license'. Actually it sounds more like ldraw.org is (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) They provide exactly that. *Counter examples* to your argumentation. If you don't know what to do with a counter example, that's your problem. In the mathematics world, *one* counter example is enough to make a 'proof' invalid. I invalidated (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
I missed this one at first. (...) What kind of language is that for a LDRAW official? Even if hiding behind '(in a personal capacity)'? I deplore this kind of 'argumentation' - you're just expressing your own opinion, and have no right calling the (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
