| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > It seems clear to us that there ought to be two licenses.
> > LDraw.org needs to be a conduit or intermediary. That is,
> > there needs to be some distinction between what an author
> > grants Ldraw and what LDraw grants the user rather than it
> > being a straight author to user license.
>
> 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?
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, it's not so much that there are different rights needed by LDraw.org
than by users (except insofar as the things covered are different) but rather
that we want LDraw.org to hold the license that authors grant, and we want
LDraw.org to grant the license that users get, rather than it being a pass
through author directly to user license. That's an N squared problem, whereeas
using a passthrough is a 2N problem, so to speak. (a pass through license was
considered and rejected in the runup to forming LDraw.org when it was realised
that we needed an entity to hold license to the library in the first place)
While it is possible, perhaps, to write one license that can be used for both
actions, one that handles both cases, I think it's cleaner if there are two,
because one license needs to start using language like Grantor/Grantee, which is
confusing.
What I mean by that:
In the author license case:
author grants to LDraw.org
(grantor) (grantee)
in the user license case:
LDraw.org grants to user
(grantor) (grantee)
The license we referenced is written from the perspective of LDraw.org as
Grantor and user as Grantee. As written, it doesn't (at least in my view anyway)
really work as well for an author to grant a license to LDraw.org for an
individual part.
Does that make sense? It seemed to make sense to us when we looked at this prior
to posting the intent we think is needed, and if you dig in the threads we
referenced, we think you'll find others saying that too.
(The last post was signed by the whole committee because it went through an
internal review process... This post is just me speaking, not the whole
committee speaking, but I'm comfortable that I've captured our thinking fairly
closely)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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) !
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
