| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 01:54:41AM +0000, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > * Author grants perpetual license but does not block LDraw from
> > revising as necessary (as long as open source, free distribution is
> > adhered to)
>
> 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?
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.
> > * License should apply to other "works" not just parts
> > * Assurance to user that parts will not disappear from the library
>
> Are we still allowing us to rename parts? What about retire parts that
> were a mistake, or a depriciated shortcut? Since we said that the
> license is for other works as well, are those not allowed to be
> removed/merged as well?
I want the ability to evolve the library. What I'm worried about is an author
pulling their part out of the library for non-technical reasons. The intent of
the "assurance" is to ensure that part will not be remove unless there is a
technical need to do so.
> Is this all implementation? I think some of these should fit into
> goals.
>
> > Open issues: (some are related to implementation and are so noted)
> >
> > * Parts migration... require explicit recertification? (implementation?)
>
> "migration" - do you mean converting to another format? To another
> license?
>
> > * One license or two (implmentation)
>
> It's only partially implementation - some of the arguments that were
> made were based upon goals, but I'm not sure about that.
>
> ...
>
> I do want to move forward with this, I'm just worried that if I don't
> say anything now, I won't be able to ask for clarifications later.
I think I can speak for the SteerCo in saying that there is no time that is "too
late" to bring up issues. While we can't please everyone, I'd think to try and
get as many people on board as possiblely. This can only be accomplished by
allowing discussion during the entire process.
-Orion
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
