| |
In lugnet.cad.mlcad, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.cad.mlcad, Don Heyse writes:
> > What if all the part authors made similar demands? I know I've only made
> > a few parts and primitives, but they're all unencumbered by such demands.
>
> Um, submission of a part subjects the part to the LDraw.org license, or is
> intended to. The parts library is protected by an overall license, or is
> intended to be in the future once the license is in place (that this effort
> has appeared to be dormant does not mean that it's still not intended to be
> brought to closure). That license is intended to clarify who controls the
> part (the community) and who has rights to use the part (everyone) but it's
> still a license.
Larry, sorry I didn't reply sooner but I was away on vacation. I guess
everyone else must be too.
Anyhow, I see you got my point. The whole reason for a parts license
is to prevent new part authors from asserting arbitrary demands on the
language we use to build our CAD models. In my opinion any .LDR extension
language should fall under the same license umbrella. I'm truly surprised
that so far only Jacob seems to understand the seriousness of this issue.
> > I'm almost inclined to say that they can no longer be used by any software
> > but mine without written permission.
>
> This is not allowed by the terms of the license you agree to (or will have
> to agree to) when you submit your part for inclusion. This is a protection
> for users of the parts. If you do not agree with the license terms you may
> not want to submit parts.
FWIW I don't know if ancient parts like mine are covered by the license for
new parts, but as I said before, I'll never place any restrictions on them,
even if this MLCAD extension license issue isn't resolved.
> The license on the MLCad documentation seems reasonable to me, it says that
> if you implement a program to that spec you have to reference the spec in
> original form so there can be no confusion about the spec or where it came
> from. It places no other restrictions and does not include a "we can modify
> this license if we want" clause.
I think you're wrong here. The license is not reasonable because it adds
confusion to an already imperfect situation. Because of the license there
is no longer any hope for a single document describing all the contents of
a users .LDR file (Unless of course Michael wishes to write such a document
and place it at http://www.lm-software.com/mlcad). Perhaps the LDRAW FAQ
should be moved there from ldraw.org?
Honestly I still hope this whole thing is a misunderstanding, or merely
an english/german language issue. Maybe "lizence" means copyright in
german?
Don
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
