| |
Tim Courtney wrote:
> 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'm extremely adverse to a future SteerCo having the
> > ability to change the terms of the EndUser license at
> > will,
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 [1].
> > 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.
This sounds like something that would apply equally to the
license agreement between LDraw.org and the parts authors.
> 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.
I suppose that is a valid point. But I am (as a programmer
and parts author) not at all willing to give a single entity
any special right to change the license to my works (this
includes both LDraw.org and FSF).
> 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.
Words you have to say. - But they don't change how
much/little I trust the current or future leadership of
LDraw.org.
> > 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.
Exactly.
> 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
Correct. But do we really want that? That would as far as
I can see also prevent Larry from selling his printed
building instructions without including a LDraw source file.
> - Prevent commercial redistribution of the library for a
> charge
Moot point since it would violate point 1 in The Open Source
Definition [1].
> - Ensure proper credit is given to authors
Right.
> - Enforce James' intentions for the spirit of LDraw
I am not quite sure what that spirit is besides "Play Well".
> 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.
I agree that "Public Domain" is not a good solution, but you
should try to make sure that your goals are consistent. At
the moment it looks like they are not consistent.
Play well,
Jacob
[1] http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
--
Experimental parallel cable-stayed bridge:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Broer/Skr%E5stagsbro-parallel/
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
