| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 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 include their parts.
>
> I'd rather not have to re-seek permission from each author for license changes
> in the future, so we don't put ourselves in the same place we're in now. We
> can't help the condition now, but we can prevent it in the future.
>
> I think the contributor agreement (what each author, present and future agrees
> to) should give LDraw.org permission to modify the license, so long as parts are
> always distributed in an open source format, and not for profit. Maybe some
> other core criteria. So long as our most basic standards and guiding principles
> are adhered to, LDraw.org should have the liberty to institute the license it
> feels is best as the steward of the authors' contributions.
>
> Again, the reason I say this is so we don't end up in a similar situation in the
> future.
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
