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