| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote:
> 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?
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 new law or
new court ruling.
I'll repeat the reasoning for this, which was not quoted above. Right now we are
in a situation where to include a part in the library under the new
(TBD) license, we must gain explicit permission from each author. This is a
significant headache, as we realize there will be some authors we simply can't
get ahold of--some parts will have to be distributed separately or re-made by an
author agreeing to the license. Setting ourselves up for a similar situation in
the future in the case any revisions are required would be irresponsible.
LDraw.org is the community supported (ratified) organization charged with
stewardship over the Library. That means the community is entrusting its leaders
to do the right thing now and in the future - something this Steering Committee
is absolutely committed to doing.
> 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 :)
I spent some time looking up information on the Public Domain. Here's the CC PD
document: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/
It is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong, by pointing out a
cite) that placing the library or the parts in the public domain does not
sufficiently protect the parts library. Specifically, a Public Domain license
does not allow us to:
- Require (re)distribution in an open-source format, preventing redistributions
in a closed-source format
- Prevent commercial redistribution of the library for a charge
- Ensure proper credit is given to authors
- Enforce James' intentions for the spirit of LDraw
Not allowing these protections runs counter to the fundamental goals of
LDraw.org. Therefore, as I see it, a Public Domain license is not a legitimate
option.
> 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 :)
Thanks for the suggestion. CC is on our radar. It's a well put together and
clearly understandable resource, and we will certainly investigate it when
developing the proposed license drafts.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
