 | | Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) I'd rather not too. I do however recall back when the LSC was forming (or had formed?) Steve Bliss mentioned to me it was better to call it the 'Language Standards Committee' instead of 'LDraw.org Standards Committee.' IIRC, at the time I (...) (20 years ago, 15-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) Whatever it's called could it be called something quickly, before you reinforce every bad opinion I have about decisions made by committee. You have more important things to sort out such as a parts library license. My opinion is they should (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) - We chose SteerCo as the short form, but we didn't think it was such a huge topic that it warranted a special announcement, so we didn't make a special announcement about it. (...) - We are focused on licensing as the first major task after (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | library license
|
|
(...) I'd also recommend Public Domain, or something really short and simple such as the zlib license. Do you think it does enough to encourage contributions back into the original library? The zlib/libpng License Copyright (c) <year> <copyright (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) I think Steve Bliss already has prepared something very similar to the zlib license. It should basically just be a matter of getting all the contributors to agree on it. Jacob (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) Glad to hear there was a fast decision :) and you right it's not a big deal, it's just I hate the idea that stuff like this would take up lots of time. (...) The only issue I can see with PD is that the part authors might object to someone (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote: More on the rest of this later. (probably in a separate thread which focuses on the license issue) (...) I'm not sure what you mean. I just checked and the candidate summary article (290) is still (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) I removed the artilce form the front page as it is no longer needed. You can, however, access all the news articles via the News Archive link (you may have to click the See All link to get to the really old articles). -Orion (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) Yes it's deffinately there, I must have misread the page. I've tracked down the quote that was was looking for too :) "With LDraw-dot-org going more and more formal making sure that our hobby doesn't get ruled too much.", Willy Tschager. Peter (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Do you have thoughts on how to deal with parts whose authors have been out of touch, and are unreachable? Any idea how many parts that affects, if say, we can't reach them and get them to agree to the license? -Tim (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) The initial step is to transfer these parts file to a special pool which continues to be distributed under the existing (but rather muddy) conditions that the parts library until now has been distributed under. Second, somebody (responsible (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) I know the license has been discussed for a long time, but to add my two cents; I'd really like to see the parts library use a Creative Commons license, specifically the Attibution-ShareAlike license ((URL)) or the plain old Attribution (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Good point. Both of them are fine with me. I think I prefer the Attribution-ShareAlike license, if I have to make a choice between the two. It seems like if would be a good idea, if the parts library maintainers set up a poll among the parts (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) The only blurry point I see with those is the clause: "Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author." Who is the author of the parts library? ROSCO (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Would it simplify things for part authors who don't care about the license to declare their parts to be public domain? Because I really don't want to be bothered wrestling over a license for the handful of files I had anything to do with. Don (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) I imagine we would define the author of the Parts Library as LDraw.org? The point for me is, parts authors are submitting their work towards the community effort. It makes much more sense to me that the community organization licenses out the (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Yes. Except that "public domain" is a concept that doesn't exist outside USA. (...) If you send Steve Bliss an e-mail, where you tell him that he (as LDraw.org Parts Library Head Honcho) is free to choose which license your parts files are (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) All the individual parts files authors. I.e. you would have to get aproval from each individual parts file author. Jacob (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) That would (as I understand things) be impossible from a legal point of view. (...) Maybe. But that would then require that all the parts authors formally transferred their copyright to LDraw.org. This is possible, but parts authors living in (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) There is a lot of misunderstanding about the general topic of copyrights. I strongly recommend that the SteerCo undertake the effort to learn more about copyrights, since copyright law is the fundamental underpinning of all redistribution (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) While this is true of the library as a whole, it isn't true of individual files. Even when an author gets a part officially into the library, I believe they are still the owner, and they're certainly the author. --Travis (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Why dont we do what the Free Software Foundation does with the GNU project. Basicly, everyone wanting to contribute code signs something stating that they hand over copyright to GNU. We do the same thing, with gaurantees in the contract that (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) The only problem with that is getting permission from authors that have *already contributed*. Many are no longer contactable, and of those that are, there may be some that don't want their work owned by Ldraw.org. You'd effectively need to (...) (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Because it is a bad idea. It requires that the parts authors put an enormous trust in those they sign over copyright to. (...) I have refused to do that for the GNU project and I will do the same for LDraw.org (but I don't think I have written (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
