| |
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?
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 present.
For me one of the big issues for me, Kevin Clague, citizen of the LDraw
community (not me as a member of SteerCo) is that licenses prevent people from
taking the library and making a lot of money and not having to give it back to
the people who did the work to put the library together.
Secondly, I'd like the parts library to be like the community water well. We
can all drink from it without having to pay for it. People can dump water into
the well (i.e. create parts), but once the water is in the well, the molecules
become intermixed with the molecules already in the well, to the point that the
average user cannot really discern where the water came from.
Having the authors maintain specific control over all aspects of the parts they
produce can be very burdonsome. For example, if a part author maintains all
rights, then at any time, for any reason, they could pull their parts, and
declare that no one could use them.
One issue that is larger than the SteerCo is "official names" for parts. I sure
wish LEGO would publish such names. If they were, *and* authors owned absolute
rights to their parts, we'd have to get permission from every part author for
every part to rename them to the "official" LEGO name.
At this point I think we'd all agree that it is impossible to communicate with
*every* part author. James is an example. Fortunatly we know how to contact
the Jessimans about this issue, but there may be other similar situations where
it is not possible.
Changing the licensing at all will require reasonable attempt at contacting all
part authors. If we can't contact them using reasonable efforts, can we presume
we can do what we want? I'd really like (a) license(s) that minimize the need
to contact each and every part author when something changes.
>
> > * 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 think both of these concerns are a practical concern that the licenses need to
allow for.
>
> 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.
In general I encourage you to bring up whatever issues you have as soon as
possible. Your input is always welcomed and encouraged at any time, but as time
progresses, our ability to address the issues might be restricted (or the effort
to address your issues will probably get larger).
License resolution is a big topic for obvious reasons, and we've got time goals
associated with it, to force the issue. The time goals need to be reasonable
enough to give people time to identify and express their concerns, but short
enough to make sure we drive it to conclusion.
Kevin
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
