| |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
<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 requirements. I also hope it covers all the
issues that I point out below
> 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.
Given that the library is a collection of parts, if the license under which
each part is provided allows it, then distribution of the parts in a library
wouldn't require a separate license. It's just multiple items provided under
this new open license.
For example in requiring author->ldraw per part license and a ldraw->user
per library license how does that handle the current practice of downloading
individual parts from the parts tracker, what license in your 2 license
scheme
applies, it's not a full library so the text of the license Steve Bliss wrote
doesn't apply.
> 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)
If the same rights such as modification and distribution are to be granted
to both ldraw and the end user is it not simpler to ask the author to grant
those rights to everybody and let ldraw.org be counted as part of the
everybody (rather than requiring special cases and an extra license).
> 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.
ldraw.org is a useful go between between the part authors and the part
users, but unless anything is to be gained from it what's the point
of legally injecting yourself between the two.
> 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)
Every license apart from the confusing 3 party (ldraw, users, authors)
license
discussed in the previous threads, (GPL, LGPL, X11, Zlib, Steve Bliss's and
Leonardo
Zide's zlib derived licenses, Artistic) is a license between the author and
the
person that receives the files (the end user). I don't believe any of the
thousands of works that use these licenses have had any problems that require
the license creators to be a 3rd party in the license.
> 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.
As I'm proposing one case, between authors->users (users includes ldraw.org)
I think the language can be written to cover both. See license idea below.
> 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.
It does make sense, though it seems very complicated for the task :)
> (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)
Understood
Here is my license idea (based on the last one by Steve Bliss, which I
think is based on zlib).
=====================================================================
LDraw.org License
version x.x, May 26 2004
This work is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors or distributors be held
liable for any damages arising from the use of this work.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this work for any purpose,
and to alter it and redistribute it freely, subject to the following
restrictions:
1. The origin of this work must not be misrepresented; you must not
claim that you wrote the original work If you use this library
in a product, an acknowledgement in the product documentation is
required.
2. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be
misrepresented as being the original work.
3. This file may not be removed or altered from any distribution.
If you redistribute a modified version, please include a file that
documents changes you have made to the library.
=====================================================================
The parts (or other work) when submitted remain under the
copyright of their original author, but you make sure
that by submitting their work they agree to this license.
Note the substitiuon of 'ldraw library' with 'the work', this
enables you to license anything under it (that you hold
copyright on). E.g. documentation, software etc. It might need some
tighter definition of 'the work' I meant it as 'anything
that can be copyrighted'.
Under this license ldraw.org receives all the rights it needs
to collate, bug fix, modify etc. the submitted parts. These
rights are also granted to anyone who downloads it making it
a true community resource.
Hope this helps explain my thinking on the subject.
Peter
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
