 | | RE: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) LDraw and LEdit can't read MPD files without first splitting them, so I see no reason to limit MPD filenames to 8.3. Long filenames will be much more readable and easier to organize, which is what we're looking for in filenames for OMR models. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
Ok, let me ask this then, do programs such as Ldlite, MLCad, etc accept ,mpd files and automatically split them or is there still the need to split the .mpd manually? I haven't used MLCad much basically because I've become so proficient in LEdit and (...) (24 years ago, 16-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) Ya, I totally agree on an (optional or maybe not optional) M part -- it's incredibly is helpful for sets with the same number that also came out in the same year -- for example 1974 Star Quest, 1974 Smuggler's Hayride, and 1974 Flyer Cracker (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:3a8dab56.648880...net.com... (...) I remember you used those examples when we were originally hashing this - in fact, they're cited in a post of mine setting the current standard back then. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | RE: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) My reasoning was that this would group all the files together and make them instantly recognizable in people's model folders. If the filename started with a number, it would get grouped with unofficial parts, for example. --Bram Bram Lambrecht (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) Why not use the same naming convention as the LUGNET DB ? That way we can cross-reference easily, there could be an option to download the .dat file just like there is now a "download building instructions from brickshelf". Well, assuming Todd (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) Ok by me --Todd (24 years ago, 19-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
And here's another issue. The Brickshelf has self-imposed restrictions to not have scans of instructions for sets from 1997 or later. Should the OMR have a similar restriction? --Ryan (24 years ago, 20-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
Ryan: (...) The whole idea of the OMR is very much in a grey area copyright-wise, so I suggest that those in charge of the OMR contact LEGO, explain the situation, and ask them what they find is reasonable. Jacob PS: You could also ask your own (...) (24 years ago, 20-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) What would that mean for Star Wars scenes? --Todd (24 years ago, 21-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) I see the situation this way. On set instructions, it may say (c)1999 LEGO Group. As many copyright disclaimers say something like this: No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or (...) (24 years ago, 22-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
[disclaimer: I am not a lawyer] (...) It's very different. Copying instructions is copying instructions. Copying .DAT files is copying text files that list parts with x,y,z coordinates and orientations. (...) A copyright 20 years old may be as valid (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) I think the DAT file becomes a derivative work. You're just translating the original work into a new medium. It's like you've written down a scene-by-scene description of a film. If it's allowed under the Fair Play policy, then it's allowed. (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
[ I am still a scientist, not a lawyer ] Erik: (...) <quote src="Danish copyright law" translation="on-the-fly"> § 4. One, who translates, reworks or in another way adapts a work, including transforming it to another form of litterature or art, has (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
[disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.] (...) Ahh, but it's nothing at all like the original work. You're not even translating the copyrighted building instruction booklet. You use the building instruction booklet to build the model, then you disassemble (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
Todd: (...) I think this is where our way of looking at things diverge. Assuming that somebody wrote this MPD-to-PostScript translater I asked for a few weeks ago we could get quite a bit closer to an automated transformation of a LDraw file into (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
[disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.] (...) Well, I think it's tempting to look at it as a transformation when it's actually reverse-engineering. (...) If an artist hand-painted extremely detailed step-by-step instructions on how to build the model -- (...) (24 years ago, 23-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Official model repository situation
|
|
(...) to (...) That's an interesting point. Here's a variation on that: If someone with a good memory watched someone else build a Lego set, he could go home and build it himself. And if he had friends with good memories, he could then show them how (...) (24 years ago, 24-Feb-01, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
