 | | (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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
