| |
On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:46:22PM +0000, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
> 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.
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 license) you're required to submit
back to the community. Where's the harm?
> 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.
That would be bad, I agree.
> 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.
I'm very familiar with the names problem. Unfortunately, LEGO isn't
likely to save us, since any names they would have would either be in
Danish or in Daneglish - neither would work well for us.
And yes, I agree, the license needs to allow the PT admins (or anyone,
for that matter) to edit parts and resubmit, as long as the original
credit is maintained.
> 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.
Right - which is why a "default" option needs to exist in the license.
Next time it will need to change, LDraw would be required to make an
effort to contact all the authors, but if not heard within a set time (1
month? 6 months?), the permission is assumed.
> 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.
Why? What's wrong with makeing the attempt, and then waiting for a bit?
Dan
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) <snip> (...) I'm positive you are much more aware of the names problem than myself and 99% of the total community...... If the names were in numeric form this would not be an issue. As we all know the molds have numbers, sets have numbers.... (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
