| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
Author specific goals
- The license that authors use to grant LDraw rights should not preclude other actions by the authors such as using the parts in other systems.
- That is, the author retains all rights except for the right of redistribution (as a perpetual paid-up license), which is granted to LDraw.org. The license should be non exclusive, the author is not precluded from licensing the parts to other entities under whatever terms they choose. However LDraw should also not be prevented from licensing to users under appropriate terms (of LDraw’s choosing, in case they need revision... there should not be a coupling).
|
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 as open-source and free of charge. However, LDraw.org
should be able to modify the user license as it deems fit, and not be
required to go back and seek each part author’s permission for a change if
one is deemed necessary.
This keeps us out of the situation we’re in right now. Parts are in the
library, being distributed on LDraw.org, but were not licensed to anyone
(cause before, there was no one to license it to). In order to implement a
license, it looks like we’re going to have to gather permission of all parts
authors (some of whom I gather we won’t be able to track down). By inserting
this stipulation into the contributor agreement, it frees LDraw.org to do
what it believes is right when it believes it is right.
So long as there are minimal requirements that prevent LDraw.org from ever
charging for the library distribution, or distributing it in a closed-source
format, I see no problem with this.
|
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 intent is so important, and because we want to proceed at all deliberate
speed, we’ll need to tighten up the wording of the intent post (upthread) to
incorporate this amplification and whatever other changes we arrive at during
the course of this phase of discussion. That post, once revised, should be used
as a test of any proposed license draft.
I think you’ve also highlighted another reason why two licenses might be simpler
than one. But again, that’s an implementation issue, let’s get intent right
first. Hold those drafts, we’ll want them soon, just not yet.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
