Subject:
|
Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 May 2004 15:57:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
870 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote:
>
> - 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.
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.
> > You have more important things to sort out such as a parts
> > library license.
>
> - We are focused on licensing as the first major task after we get the
> organizational stuff done. We are still working on internal organization stuff,
> but it's only been 3 days so far, so we're doing good, I think.
>
> > My opinion is they should be placed in
> > the 'public domain',
>
> - We are considering PD as one of the alternatives. It has some advantages and
> some drawbacks. We're interested in input on the pros and cons of all the
> various licensing schemes. How do you think parts authors will view PD? The
> license scheme needs to encourage contribution of new/revised parts and enable
> use.
The only issue I can see with PD is that the part authors might object
to someone basing a commercial product and making money off there work.
There is a big difference between saying 'I'm giving this away for free'
and 'I'm giving this away for free, and I'm happy for you to make money
from it'. But wording a decent 'non commercial license' is very tricky,
where do you draw the line. Eg imagine a commercial computer game used
the parts as a basis for it's graphics (could be construed as bad)
compared to little Johnny making posters of his ldraw models and selling
them for charity (could be construed as good).
It all depends what you a trying to achieve with the ldraw license.
What are it's goals?
To allow multiple programs to distribute the parts with them?
Do you wish for there to only be one source for ldraw parts?
Are ldraw parts considered only changeable by the processes
set up by ldraw.org?
Do you wish to prevent commercial usage of the parts library?
Should ldraw parts be allowed to be converted into formats
suitable for use in non ldraw based programs?
Should those converted parts be allowed to be redistributed?
Are ldraw library parts considered open to the community to
base new parts on or modify as they see fit?
Should ldraw parts modifications be linked to the Ldraw
Standards committee specification to make sure all new ideas
go through that?
Sorry that's rather a lot of questions :)
One of the reasons I ask is that a friend is working on
file format based in XML for handling ldraw pieces, including
connection ideas. He has a program that converts ldraw pieces to
his new format. In this case would he be allowed to redistribute
a library which has it's ancestry in the ldraw parts library?
Currently, No.
An on running background process to any debate on licensing
issues would be to make a list of all those who contributed
parts to the library (and therefore own the copyright on it)
to make sure that when you have decided on a license you know
who to ask for permission :)
> > it would allow for maximal uptake of
> > the library without 6 months of arguing about how to make
> > an ldraw specific legally binding license to accomplish the
> > same task.
>
> - I'd prefer it not take 6 months or anywhere near that. (you'll recall it was a
> campaign point of mine that this would get high focus early in my term if I was
> elected)
I know, but if you go anywhere near Intellectual Property law and
licensing, you're opening yourself up to a whole world of pain :(
> But I'd also rather not rush so much that we make a bad decision.
All choices are going to be bad for someone.
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Consider me a counterpoint.
I'm reminded of a campaign point made by an unsuccessful candidate.
That he suggested that we 'shouldn't over regulate our hobby' [1]
which is a very good sentiment here. More may be accomplished in the
long run by have more open processes than by placing restrictions
now which prevent radical new ideas from being developed in the
future.
Peter
[1] Sorry this is probably a misquote, as the background position
statements aren't linked in anymore on ldraw.org.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
27 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
