| |
What follows is my personal reply not offical position of SteerCo.
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Wayne Gramlich wrote:
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
snip
| |
User Specific Goals
- Author protection: Users should not be able to claim the work as their own. The identifying marks in the parts that show who authored them and who modified them should be preserved under changes that the user makes. This should be auditable.
- Non pollution. The library itself should always be open source but mere use of the library should not force programs that use or distribute the library, or derivations of the library to themselves be open source. Being required to make their work open, or to give it away free (because they got a free and open input) because of transitive library issues seems wrong. One interpretation of GPL, (which thankfully we think isn’t a serious contender at this point) suggests that would be the case.
- No restriction on usage. Users should be able to do whatever they like (including using the parts as input to creation of a competing format) subject only to the above provisos about identification, without restriction and without payment of fee, even if they use the parts in a commercial work.
|
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.
|
I agree. We missed this goal, and it is indeed important.
| |
The user has typically invested a great deal of effort incorporating library
parts into their manual/animation/etc. and does not want to have the
rug pulled out from under them by having one or more parts that they
used disappear from the library during a library update.
|
True. And sort of false. Sometimes (take the change in the 9V train wheelset
recently) there is a need to have parts change. So I would suggest that parts
should not disappear without good technical reason, (and with some upgrade path
and replacement offered).
That is I suspect not the sort of disappear you meant but I did want to mention
it.
As long as LDraw.org exists I think we all want it to continue distributing
this library.
| |
You can word smith this goal how ever you want, but this goal is the
one that generates the tension between part authors who might
wish to retain part revocation rights and users who want the part
in the library in perpetuity.
My $.02,
|
Thanks!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
