| |
Orion Pobursky wrote:
>
> 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.
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 of when they
think it'll be necessary to change the terms of the license?
IMHO it would be simpler and more future proof to get the
authors to grant their rights to the public. If you're intention
is to provide an 'open source' library to the public, why not
concentrate on providing a license that does that instead of
requiring excessive faith from the part authors that the current
and all future ldraw.org licenses will be to their liking. One
advantage of getting the license fixed first time is that we
can all move on and do more interesting things :)
If the SteerCo has a chance they might want to investigate the
series of licenses known as 'creative commons' [1] a series of
licenses designed to help artists, musicians, authors etc provide
their work to the public. There is a simple questionnaire that by
providing answers to common questions they will generate a license
for you [2]. Might take the legwork out of the license business as
creative commons provides both human readable [3] and lawyer
readable [4] versions of each license. As none of us here is an
Intellectual Property lawyer (as far as I've noticed :) ) getting
help with a license would be extremely beneficial. Taking a look
at [4] does anyone here *really* feel confident writing something
like that?
Another advantage of a creative commons license is that we may be
able to sing our part files in public for their entertainment :)
Peter
[1] http://creativecommons.org/learn/
[2] http://creativecommons.org/license/
These are examples of the 'Creative Commons Attribute License'
[3] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
[4] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
