 | | License Intent
|
|
Vision As promised previously, the Steering Committee would like to share our thoughts on licensing goals. We think it's important that any license, copyright, trademark, trade dress or other legal construction be done in the spirit of the overall (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
One thing I touched upon a while ago that may be useful, is creating an entirely NEW library, with the same format, and only adding primitives and parts as authors give their consent to the new licence. This would allow the current "complete" (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I see one problem with this. It would mean that files not moved into the new library couldn't be updated, short of being re-written from scratch. I don't think that's a good idea. Of course, maybe that already happens when authors can't be (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I can't see the reason for this. Why shouldn't any user of the parts files have the same rights as LDraw.org? What special permissions does LDraw.org need, which it would be problematic to grant to all the users? Play well, Jacob (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I also can't understand the reason for two licenses. With one license ldraw.org and the community as a whole gain the same rights to modify/redistribute/buildupon the community provided library. The license described in (URL) I think be ideal (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Well first of all there are different things being granted. An author grants rights to a particular part (each time he or she uploads that part), not the entire library. The user gets rights granted to the entire library as a whole. However, (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote: [snip] (...) Just tacking on a note of agreement here. -Tim (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) <snip> I've taken the chance to read the threads mentioned earlier in this thread. And I've made a version of the license (based on the previous Steve Bliss version) that handles both author->ldraw.org requirements and author->EndUser (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote: (snip) I need to go back through the post and read it more carefully before I respond in depth. However, quickly... Thanks for sharing another license draft, but we really *really* would like to get (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I'd like to add to this one. It became clear to me in a recent conversation that this goal should be more defined. When authors submit parts to LDraw.org, it should be under the understanding that LDraw.org will always distribute their parts (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Thanks Tim. The minimal requirements you speak of are incorporated in the Bylaws (in the goals of the organization section) already. Bylaws can be changed but I think anyone proposing such a change would be shouted down and rightly so. Because (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
This is post to sum up my ideas before I pop off on holiday for a few days. 1) Consider making the license apply to more than just parts or the parts library. This would allow things like documentation or software to be distributed too. 2) I would (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) The license draft included in my post was merely done to demonstrate that the language needed to license the people described is possible. I've condensed most of my points, and some new ones, into a new post that I've posted in reply to the (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote: snip (...) Larry: I think you missed an important user goal. The user wants assurance that parts will not disappear from the library when it is updated. The user has typically invested a great deal (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
What follows is my personal reply not offical position of SteerCo. (...) I agree. We missed this goal, and it is indeed important. (...) True. And sort of false. Sometimes (take the change in the 9V train wheelset recently) there is a need to have (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Maybe there's a need for a Lugnet user "LDraw.org SteerCo" so members of the SteerCo don't have to continue posting such disclaimers. Maybe limit posting range to CAD tree (maybe even ldraw tree?) and maybe announce. ROSCO (Added (...) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Not a bad idea I guess. Not a bad idea at all. I'm comfortable with meanwhile making it clear by signature though. (basically, if a post is signed with all 5 of our names, it's official, else it's not) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
FTX and me are not getting along tonite. In the interests of not having words disappear I am posting this in plain text. Apologies for the dups and cancels. In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote: In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Wasn't there a question if an author agrees to distribute the part under a specific license? As in, if you change the license, do you need to get permission from the authors, etc? (...) Are we still allowing us to rename parts? What about (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Yes. If possible, I'd like to see a method by which we can revise the licence but have to get explicit agreement from every author. (...) I want the ability to evolve the library. What I'm worried about is an author pulling their part out of (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I think I disagree here. One of the problems we have right now is when we implement the license, we will have to explicitly seek each author's approval. Some authors will be unreachable, which means we won't be able to gain their perimssion to (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Sorry, I missed typed. I meant to say "If possible, I'd like to see a method by which we can revise the licence but not have to get explicit agreement from every author." I with Tim's above statments. -Orion (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Sorry, I was a bit too terse here. This refers to how we start. Do we have a way to migrate all the parts in, or do we have to get explicit recertification from each author of each and every part (many parts currently in the library hvae (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I'm extremely adverse to a future SteerCo having the ability to change the terms of the EndUser license at will, especially after we're putting all this effort into getting it correct now. For an example, could the SteerCo give some examples (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) This is a tough one Dan. Before becoming a member on the SteerCo, I never gave licensing much thought, but I'm getting up to speed now. There are a number of issues about licensing as wel can tell by the many conversations from the past and (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) revise the (...) Yes, we're putting a lot of effort into getting this right. So, there shouldn't be any forseeable _major_ changes. To cite one example, IP law is continuously evolving; there may come a time when a change is required due to a (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) <blink> How is the second item (a) a "protection" and (b) required by "the fundamental goals of Ldraw.org"? I would observe that Linux and the GNU Project seem to have done fine, despite frequent commercial redistribution for a charge (by Red (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I am not sure I mind allowing SteerCo/LDraw.org to relicense my parts under a different license, but I definitely don't want to give SteerCo/LDraw.org any special rights. That would also be a violation of point 5 in The Open Source Definition (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) My understanding about that was that the charge was a media charge, not a charge for the library or work itself. In particular I thought a lot of the revenue that Red Hat receives is for support. Personally I could see some far fetched (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I want to address just this point for now. I don't see how ensuring the Parts Library is open would prevent Larry (or anyone else) from distrbuting a LDraw file commercially. Due to the nature of the LDraw file system, I would not consider an (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I think that the analogy "computer program source" is to "compiled executable" as ".dat file" is to "rendered image" is, mostly, valid. In both cases, you take the source, run it through one of many programs (which may indeed give different (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) It wouldn't. But I would (could) prevent him (and everybody else) from distributing renderings that includes parts from the Parts Library, since these are derivative works of the parts in the Parts Library. (...) Agreed. But Larry's problem is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) 1) That is Red Hat's business model, but not always or exclusively. For example, Red Hat used to make a product named MetroX (I can't remember if it replaces XFree86 or a window manager), and buying a Red Hat CD gave you the right to install (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Actually, redhat stopped shipping free linux (with the exception of Fedora, which isn't supported by Redhat anymore) - if you want to get RHL, you have to pay for it now. So it's not only for the media/documentation/support anymore. (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Would it work if the license says that any future changes need author approval, but have a timeout? If after, say, 30 days of asking for approval (on ldraw, lugnet, and in email) there's no responce, the approval is assumed? Maybe 30 days is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) While I wouldn't like that, I'm not sure we really need to prevent it. OS software seems to do ok with allowing people to profit - the assumption is that if you use the code to profit, you'll probably make improvents to it, which (under OS (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
I think that we shouldnt say "you cant distribute the library and charge for it" but instead do what e.g. GPL does and allow selling it but with the licence (which includes the right to freely redistribute the covered works) applying to it (so if I (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Is a non commercial clause part of the SteerCo's intent? It wasn't mentioned in the initial post or in Larry's update. Could you clarify for me? Discounting the use of rendered parts in commercial products, eg. Larry selling ldraw rendered (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I'm positive you are much more aware of the names problem than myself and 99% of the total community...... If the names were in numeric form this would not be an issue. As we all know the molds have numbers, sets have numbers.... (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) (personal thoughts) I think your suggestion could work. I'm very wary of requiring absolute explicit permission for any future changes, though I do want to ensure the authors' wishes are considered in potential future changes. The reason is, (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) That would be great - but are you going to ask them also to distribute the latest copy of the library from their site? Or on any of the media they distribute? Is that something we want? The answer might be yes, but I don't think it should be. (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) So exactly how would someone release a rendering in complience with open source ? The DAT file associated with the render is not subject to the open source rules (since it is not a derivative work but merely references the library as a tool) (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) As a parts author who is likely to go inactive to the future (parts authoring, I've noticed, comes in spurts), I'd like to see the following: License dictates that any future changes need author approval. A majority of authors approving is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
I have to agree (and I know as a non-part author myself other than pathetic attempts which never saw the light of day by point will be held in less regard than those of actual offical part authors') that all parts should be open source. Not that (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) It is very hard to define what commerical vs. non-commercial use is as the examples above demonstrate. One of the best ways to ensure that part authors do not feel "ripped off" is to ensure that the library is alwasys freely (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) Wouldn't this problem be solved by the GPL approach, where any modifications made have to be re-submitted to the original library? This way, yes, you can make your cool changes, and sell them, but you have to send the patches back to the (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) (For those of you who do not know, GPL=Gnu Public License.) GPL is one strategy. I prefer an innovate over litigate strategy. The GPL is complex and in certain critical areas extremely vague. The GPL attempts to mandate innovation by requiring (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) I agree that GPL might not be the right license to use here - I was just using it as an example of how the "extension" problem might be dealt with, as far as the license goes. Of course that we would always want the LDraw format to be the most (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) It is my understanding of the GPL that no such re-submission is required. As long as you agree to the GPL terms and give appropriate credit to the original author, you can publish your mods as a separate work (or upgrade) under the GPL. (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) Understood. (...) Agreed. (...) As long as people understand the trade-offs. Adding redistribution restriction clauses is tricky and hard to get right. Frequently people can work around them. (...) It is quite possible, although I doubt that (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) You are corrrect. Re-submission is not required. Library changes only need to be published. [snip] (...) Agreed. It is bunch of work for just about everybody involved. However, the result is typically better than if you go off on your own. (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) The GPL does not require re-submission to the original source. (...) You don't have to send the changes back to the maintainers, you only have to make the source of the changes freely available to everyone, you're even allowed to charge a (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) Sorry - my mistake. (...) Ok, yes, that was my point - you can't keep the changes to yourself, you have to publish them, so that they could (in theory) be merged with the original library. (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) The spirit of what I'm trying to get at is this: if someone wants to read LDraw into a proprietary format, shouldn't they also write LDraw? Taking an open format and importing it into a closed format, without a way to write back to the open (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I can appreciate the idea, but I doubt that you will be able to enforce that through a license for the parts library. Also, it is not always possible to implement a two-way converter between a pair of formats. Jacob (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, "Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote: [snipped tons] (...) Sorry I'm coming late to this party... At some point in this thread, Larry stated something about 'decoupling' the two licenses. To some (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) How are parts individually copyrighted? Actually, what exactly is a 'part'? Is a shock absorber a single part, or an assembly of several parts? How about a minifig torso (as they exist in lego sets)? If you want to talk about have to copyright (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I'm not philosophically opposed to an old/new library, but it would be awkward to administer. Especially if we suddenly started restricting ourselves from modifying the uncertified files. We'd start spending a lot of time explaining to people (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
What follows are my opinions, not vetted with the rest of the committee... (...) Yes. Personally I strongly agree that there ought to be baseline never to be changed conditions.. and that they ought to be named off. (note: that conflicts with using (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I agree. I just don't think we've come up with a better solution yet. Hopefully someone clever will spot the one we've missed so far! The problem with one library is that, to be fair, it sort of feels like we can't just wing it and say all the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) If anybody has copyright to a _part_, it must by default be LEGO. But the copyright to a rendering of a part in one or a number of LDraw files is held jointly by all the involved parties (ignoring the difficult question of exactly how small (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) That depends on the license on the LDraw Parts Library and the LDraw file for the model/scene. (...) Exactly. (...) But since the _rendering_ of the DAT file _is_ a derivative work of the LDraw Parts Library, distributing the rendering may (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
Steve said: (...) ... And Larry said: (...) Had to look up "tacitly": in a tacit manner; by unexpressed agreement; "they are tacitly expected to work 10 hours a day" And if I understand things correctly, you could argue that, but you'd be wrong :) (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Perhaps the book authors could share some insight on this, because there are many books out there containing renderings. What legal hoops did they jump through in order to publish? Don (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) From my recollection (and this is digging back, you made me think here) I went off of the LDraw.exe LICENSE.TXT. The clause I presumed gave permission to publish commercially was: -- USAGE PROVISIONS: Permission is granted to the user to use (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) You are correct here, I should have used the term 'file' or 'work' instead of 'part'. From a copyright standpoint I mean 'work of an author'. (...) There are two ways to looks at this issue. 1) Get permission of all those involved and get them (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
All what follows is my opinion only. (...) authors "give up copyright". Let's not confuse PD with right of redistribution. Let's not confuse giving up copyright with right of redistribution. What I am suggesting is that by posting a part to the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Well, that's been our M.O. so far. So if we continue to distribute files under that umbrella, we won't be in any worse shape than we are now. (...) Yes. Agreed. However, we can (and probably should) start labeling everything that is covered (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Another question: if Joe submits a new file, and later on Jane fixes it, how much IP does Jane really have on the file? More concretely, we're fairly confident the Jessiman's will agree to license all of James' files to the (new) library. Many (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I doubt it. Going by what I've seen in the Open source programming environment, the file's original author is considered the copyright owner, even after someonelse makes a bug fix or some other tweak. If the change is big enough, (whole new (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Actually I beliee that this is the exact case where the LGPL differes from the GPL. Since the Parts 'library' will only be referecned as a library, I think that (if the LGPL were used on it,) it's license wouldn't pollute the license of the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) From (URL): »However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I read the exact same clause and come to exactly the opposite conclusion. My reasoning is that because linking is something you do to code, not LDraw parts; the clause has no bearing to LDraw parts. Is my interpretation right, or (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
Just for the record: IANAL (...) Mine. LDraw files are source code (at least according to the definition in the LGPL). And unless you consider rendering a specific kind of compilation, LGPL would not allow you to do anything useful with a parts (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I don't know. I think when something is statically linked you can recover the original code with a disassembler. It's really still there in a different form. There's no way to disassemble a picture into the ldraw code without using the ldraw (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Moving the License Forward
|
|
Everyone - First I want to offer the Steering Committee's apologies for the delay in moving this issue forward. We've spent some time discussing the license and now we are ready to present a proposed solution for comments and feedback. After talking (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !!
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) (URL) I can see no difference in the human readable summary, it's likely the differences are in the legal version. This seems a good an open license. (...) Could your explain your thinking behind why you believe this second license is (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) There has been a lot of discussion on this already. We carefully considered all the discussion and decided that two licenses offer the best approach for maximum flexibility. The text of the posted draft license itself highlights a key thing (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) What is the reason for requiring this clause in the licence? (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I would hope that any changes made to a part file would include attribution to the original author(s). Perhaps this should be spelled out in the license? Other than this one little issue, I like what I see. Putting these two licenses into (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) In case we find a part that's broken or wrong, we are under no obligation to release it. -Orion (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) It could be for reasons as simple as the server being temporarily off-line. Greetings, Jacob (who doesn't think he'll accept the redistribution agreement) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Jacob - I think you understand these things a lot better than me. Could you explain your thoughts? (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I agree with Dan. As one of the more important people that need to accept the final resolution, I'd like to know exactly what you object to or what you think needs to be changed. -Orion (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I haven't thought it properly through yet, but I would like to have some assurance that either the basic characteristics of the license will remain unchanged (for example through a fixed "human readable" version of the license) or that I as an (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) That's hard to put into legalese, I fear, but I agree that's an important concept. I think we all agree once we have this fixed there won't be, and won't need to be, change at the macro level. How WOULD we go about codifying that idea? (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) But that's not what the text says. The one real reason to have two agreements (AFAIK) is that we don't want to treat the library is simply an archive of all the individual files -- we want it to have a unique identity. So using 'file' and (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Do you mean the entire "Contributor's agreement", or just the "auto-approve changes checkbox"? Steve (who almost certainly won't be accepting that checkbox) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Skip the above. The C.A. can't take away any rights of the author, and shouldn't. Several people maintain webpages of 'their' parts, and they should be able to do so. If people want to distribute their own parts, more power to them (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) That might be a good idea. We do have standing policies for most situations; everything from making minor fixes to using someone else's code in a new part to rearranging an existing file into new file(s) to entirely rewriting an existing part. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Standing policies, yes, but programmatic enforcement, no. Too much in this arena relies on you and I applying those policies correctly in the parts updates. And there is always going to have to be some flexibility that needs admin judgement. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Speaking personally [1]: For the initial CA we should contact everyone who's got Submit rights, plus anyone named in a Name: line for whom we have contact details. New users should be asked to accept the CA as part of them getting Submit (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
BTW, for everything I wrote earlier in this thread, c/Name:/Author:/. Thanks. (...) I'm open to more programmatic enforcement, but I'm not seeing what that would be like. For this discussion, I'd be happy if there is mention that attribution (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) True. (...) I think the "in perpetuity" phrase above fills this (...) That's good. (...) I think this is good but others might balk at the non-specificness of terms (...) The fist paragraph of the agreement defines "Author" as anyone who (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I don't follow but see below (...) I think that: a,b,d are covered by the CA "no obigation" clause c is covered by the "Author grants permission to other authors to modify their work" clause but I agree that a rewording may be in order (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) The text says 'library', not 'files' or 'contributions'. When the term 'library' is used in the CA, it should be discussing the entire library as a single entity. If that specific statement is meant to refer individual files, it should say (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I am uncomfortable with the specific phrasing and reference to the Parts Tracker. Consider the situation[1] where author Alpha creates a part and publishes it on the Web. Author Beta then contacts Alpha and asks that it be submitted to the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) The entire "Contributor's agreement". If I accept the "Contributor's agreement" in its current form, I will probably also check the "auto-approve changes checkbox". Voting about my copyright doesn't make sense to me. Either I accept the risk (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Understood. (...) That seems a little harsh to an author under this kind of situation ... 1) Person A submits part to parts tracker, agrees to CA. 2) Part has small issue with it preventing it from being approved quickly 3) Ldraw SteerCo (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) No reponse isn't a response ;) but you cover it below in how they become abstentions. (...) I'm not sure I agree with a simple majority has enough weight behind it given the importance of the outcome of the vote. Imagine this outcome Abstains (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Whilte you make a good argument, I think you're leaving out something. It's the author's responsibility to maintain an address where LDraw.org can contact them on organizational business. Plus, LDraw.org announces important things like this (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) OK - this is a timing thing - we can fine tune the qualification criteria. What I was trying avoid was people who have expressed a desire to author parts, yet never got around to doing so, having a strong influence in the distribution license. (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I agree with the timeout, and that the authors need to maintain their email addr on record updated. I'm not sure we should discount Peter's note though, that right now we're setting up a system that by default will accept change - that is not (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Wouldn't putting something in the CA, with the whole section explaining how the license can be changed in the future, something like this: While the library's license can be changed in the future using this procedure, any new license will have (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I admit my turnout values may have been optimistic :) But I still feel that a greater than 50.00000something percent positive vote ought to be needed to move away from something as good as the ShareAlike license. (...) What, at the risk of (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) That kind of makes sense. I'm writing a new CA draft and I'll take that into consideration. -Orion (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I like that. I'll tkae that into consideration with the new draft I'm writing. -Orion (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I like it. :) That's almost like what I asked for before (URL) Steve (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Well, it's not really voting about my copyright, it's voting about retroactively accepting changes to the agreement between myself and LDraw.org. My issue is the checkbox pretty much invalidates the entire 'making changes' section of CA. If a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Another thought - don't treat the 'no responses' and 'abstain' as identical. The actual abstain votes could be counted toward a total count, and the ayes would have to exceed a given fraction of that total. For example, we could require a 33% (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I think that's a good idea, and it makes sense to me. Abstain becomes not exactly no (since it doesn't count against the measure), instead it means "I need more information" - which is a valid response, IMO. Oh, and I agree that the checkbox (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) 'Evil' is a bit too strong of a word here, and I think it's an unfair labeling. The checkbox doesn't say that the author (not user) forsees the changes they're agreeing to, rather it says that they put their trust in the SteerCo to guide the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) positive (...) And I maintain, if there are not enough authors still active at a time this potential situation were to come up, It could be near impossible to make the change. If there were a situation where the change was needed, and there (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) there is no way in getting me to agree to this clause if this also impleis that others may modify my work before it got certified. to make it clearer: no fixes to parts I submitted for the first time. (...) once if got official they might do (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) Willy, I know how strong your feelings are about this particular subject but some don't feel this way. Is there some compromise that will allow both sides to be happy? -Orion (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Quoting Yoda, "Hard to see, the future is". The ability to change the ShareAlike license is to hedge our bets against unforseen issues. If you are omnipotent (should I call you Q?), then you can see all forseeable issues and can (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I think the key word here is 'active'. If the requirement is that some percent of the ACTIVE authors actually are for a change, wouldn't that work for both of you? Dan (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I was using Steve's word, but I believe we both meant it in the geeky sense of "should not exist", and not "is maliciously placed". Dan (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I'm not sure what the history is here, but what happens to good parts that were almost completed, and need a few minor fixes, but the original author has no interest in it anymore? Should the part just sit in the PT forever? Should it be (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I think you might be on to something. What's a good definition of ACTIVE? Some ideas I had: a) did activity x within the last y time periods (x could be any of authored, reviewed, participated in a discussion or other) or b) responded to the (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I won't burden steve with work, but two simple checkboxes at the PT's submit page saying: # Be aware that by touching my parts you will have to face the entire italian mafia and end up in nice brand new concrete boots # I'm not Willy, fix them (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) All humor aside, is this really a license issue, or a parts tracker policy issue? I know this has been a big issue in the past and I don't want to ignore it, but I'm not sure it is a license issue. It in some ways asks the question of when (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I think this is a PT policy issue and not a license issue. (...) Per the CA, upon submission to LDraw.org. -Orion (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) Currently LDraw.org has control once it is submitted, so the licence should be agreed to upon submission. You could set it up so authors only have to agree once a file is certified, before including it in the official library, (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) And yet you appear to be trying to write one, the contributor agreement. Although I don't have any particular experience in writing licenses, I have done a fair bit of work with them, at one point my company required me to read and understand (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
Here's the CA v2. If you have criticism, please also offer a proposed solution. Summary of changes: - Added a 33% majority for passage instead of a simple majority - A general reordering and rewording of the entire document. The LDraw.org Steering (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
Some of my points are relatively minor/subtle, but it's better to bring them up now. (...) Instead of "parts", I would prefer "work" or some other term that's relatively generic. Not all files are actually part files -- besides the sub-part files (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) I'd like to request that future revisions be posted in a new thread. It would be easier to follow discussions that way. I'm making this request primarily because this thread has grown to over 100 messages. But it really applies to any "request (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) Good suggestion given the way LUGNET is set up now. My main reason for posting revisions in the same thread is so the discussions following the various revisions can be linked. But, you are right, when it grows to over 100, then it becomes (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) It would seem the general concensus that we need Licensing, so we need a license, even if it is hard to do. Agree? (...) Great. WHen you point out an issue with the license it is greatly appreciated that you provide an alternate solution to (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) I wish 100 was a user selectable option, or an option by group or something. But I don't know enough server internals to know if that's feasible. (...) One of the primary ways that I do LUGNET research (and the way I used to do the research on (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) Very good idea! (...) And it helps future readers when the linkage is spelled out explicitly. Steve (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) Thanks! Maybe even crosslink, with the first post in the continued tree pointing (with an explicit label) back to the root of the previous tree too. (...) Yes! (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
Here is my take on this second version of the license Peter (...) And you've changed the first EndUser license from Creative Commons Share Alike License [1] to Creative Commons Attribute License [2] I presume this was because of the ShareAlike (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) <snip> I like the rest of your comments so I've snipped them out. I do have a qustion on the below. (...) Isn't 3 redundant and cover by the 1? -Orion (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) Yes, you're right, a combo of 1 & 2 should cover 3. When I was trimming so much out of your license I should have been more careful in adding bits :) Can anyone think of anything that ought to be in 'Base Level' of rights ? Peter (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributer Agreement v2
|
|
(...) I'd like a no-cost restriction. In other words, anything covered can be distributed for free. This doesn't mean you can't charge, it just means that you don't have to charge. Or maybe all this is implied by the above? Do we need to explicitly (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
