| |
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 09:35:48AM +0000, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Tim Courtney wrote:
> > 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).
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 too short a time, but since these
things should be so rare, even 6 months wouldn't be out of the question
for getting approval.
Wouls something like that work?
> > 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.
Or allowing LEGO to "import" ldraw files (even if they support exporting
to ldraw) without putting up the complete original library for download.
Is that what we want?
> > - Enforce James' intentions for the spirit of LDraw
>
> I am not quite sure what that spirit is besides "Play Well".
I don't understand this either - I neve know James, so I don't know what
his intentions were.
Dan
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) (personal thoughts) I think your suggestion could work. I'm very wary of requiring absolute explicit permission for any future changes, though I do want to ensure the authors' wishes are considered in potential future changes. The reason is, (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) As a parts author who is likely to go inactive to the future (parts authoring, I've noticed, comes in spurts), I'd like to see the following: License dictates that any future changes need author approval. A majority of authors approving is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
