Subject:
|
Re: library license
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 May 2004 07:15:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1315 times
|
| |
|
|
Andrew Westrate wrote:
> I'd really like to see the parts library use a Creative
> Commons license, specifically the Attribution-ShareAlike
> license (<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/>)
> or the plain old Attribution license
> (<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/>). These
> have the benefit of being simple and standardized.
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 authors, to see
which of the appropriate licenses has the strongest support
(counted in number of modelled parts I suppose).
Play well,
Jacob
--
Jacob's LEGO:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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 (21 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
