Subject:
|
Re: Sounds good, however... (from an LDRAW neophyte)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Feb 2001 06:17:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
833 times
|
| |
|
|
Tim and Steve answered a lot, I will try to fill in a few additional items
and additional perspective.
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Pat Hough writes:
> FORWARD: Please accept my comments in the civil spirit in which they were
> intended, and not an attempt to start some sort of conflict. I asked some
> very tough questions because the proposal seemed to advocate it. This is
> also a somewhat long response, but in the end it is only because this sounds
> like a decent idea that just needs a good bit of discussion.
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> That sounds like a good slice of the LDraw population to start this off.
>
> One of the goals I would like to see set by this group is a serious effort
> to simplify the entire gamut of the LDraw universe. Details:
While this is a laudable goal, it is not the first goal of the group.
The first goal of the group is to solve some specific problems around
licensing, one of the big ones being that an organization that doesn't exist
cannot license anything. For an organization to exist, a group has to form
to organize it and give it a legal identity. I wanted to see this group
called the ad-hoc organizing committee, because that's what it is. It is not
intended to be the final structure but it's a good cut. Simple is best.
Don't read too much into this. The other stuff can and should happen but is
not necessarily solely the responsibility of the ad-hoc organizing committee
to accomplish.
<snip a bunch of very constructive concrete suggestions for improvement of
various things because I totally agree with them as good things to do by
somebody, although not necessarily this committee>
> I guess the one thing I don't want to see an organization like this become
> is an inner-circle type of group where veteran LDraw users can meet to
> congratulate each other on how imaginative they all are while the neophytes
> sit outside wondering what's going on. (For the record, this is in no way
> intended to reflect any attack on LUGNET or the sharing of ideas through
> MOCs). I'd just be really...discouraged...if I was to ask a simple question
> regarding LDraw in the LDraw newsgroup and be told "Well, you really should
> take this up with the LDraw Committee". No Big Brother, thank you.
Not the idea. The idea is to have an organization to solve the licensing
problem. With the events that are coming down the pike, this problem needs
to be solved and soon.
> I am encouraged by such efforts as Shiri Dori's LEGO acronym listing: easy
> to access and use, and open to feedback.
>
> I am aware that LDraw in all its infinite forms is generally available to
> anyone.
Today. By luck. And we'd prefer to see to it that it stays that way.
> Please let this focus drive the formation of this organization.
It does. Licensing needs to exist in order to ensure that things remain
generally available.
> Additional concerns follow.
> ==================================================
> > There's been occasional discussion about formalizing the LEGO-style CAD fan
> > organization. Although an informal organization usually serves us pretty
> > well, there are some things an informal group can not do, such as deal well
> > with keeping a treasury, or establishing license agreements.
>
> Why a treasury?
A group without one has no real substance. Necessary evil.
> Why license agreements?
Steve and Tim answered this one. We have a very muddy situation now and it
needs fixing. Informal groups and discussion weren't getting to the end goal.
> That charter sounds like the first real step towards forming the group. Ask
> yourself "Why are we forming this organization?" In order to...
Solve the licensing problem. Provide a legal entity for the licenses to be
anchored to.
> > To start this process, an adhoc committee has tentatively formed,
> > consisting of the adminstrators of the ldraw.org website and parts library.
> > That's these people:
> >
> > Tim Courtney
> > Jacob Sparre Andersen
> > Terry Keller
> > Steve Bliss
> >
> > Additionally, we've also asked Larry Pieniazek to 'sit in' on the
> > committee's communication, to lend us his expertise in volunteer/fan
> > organizations and general knowledge of group functioning.
> >
> > Between the 4+1 members, we feel we have a fair representation of the LCAD
> > community--developers, authors, evangelists, and users.
>
> Perhaps you should add one more representative -- a person from the general
> LUGNET population who is not necessarily a LCAD or LDraw expert but can
> translate the groups activities to the other LUGNET members. Sort of a >liasion.
That would be me. I am no CAD expert. Never wrote a tool. Never authored a
part. But I AM a CAD user who cares about the subject. However adding
another person to the 4 members would be doable. Why add someone from the
LUGNET population that has no CAD interest, though? What is the relevance?
I asked to stay OUT of the committee for a reason, I want to advise only. I
don't think users should have the same voice as authors, and doers of
organizational work, since we don't do the work, only reap the benefits.
Before adding more members, remember, small committees are better at getting
big things done. Big committees tend not to even be able to get small things
done. And solving this license problem is a Big Thing.
> > We've also established the following short-term goals. Each of these goals
> > is very important for the group, and needs to be handled as soon as
> > possible.
> >
> > 1. Spearhead the establishment of a formal LEGO CAD fan group.
> > 2. Implement a process to formally register members of the group.
> > 3. Finalize licensing agreement(s) for the LDraw parts library.
>
> Now that (3) I'd like explained in greater detail.
I find that baffling, what more detail did you want exactly? The problems
have been discussed in depth. There has been thrashing on licenses but no
closure.
> Selection of members: Yes. Goals: Not without some answers. I mean, it
> sounds frighteningly like you're attempting to tighten control over
> something I thought was public domain.
No, we are trying to straighten out a big mess and ensure that the right
sort of license is put in place, one that protects authors and ensures their
work remains usable.
> Maybe I'm missing something here.
Maybe.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
21 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
