| |
"Kevin L. Clague" wrote:
>
> 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.
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 instructions (which I think ought to definitely be allowed)
there
are a couple of issues regarding banning selling of the parts library.
Imagine these scenarios
1) Natalie F Monkeyson [1], a respected member of the ldraw community has
come up with a way to make money for a local charity. Natalie is creating a
CD
full of lego related programs and information and is selling it for 10 US
dollars a time. Should the ldraw parts library be allowed to be distributed
in
this way?
2) Lionel H. Cheescake [1], a upcoming young programmer has set to work
creating a new windows editor for making lego models. His program is highly
regarded by the community and is considered a giant leap forward in usability
and features. He decides to sell his program, it is distributed on CD with a
copy of the ldraw parts library (perhaps modified under the terms of the
license, eg. converted to DirectX meshes), it sells for 30 US dollars a copy.
Should the ldraw parts library be allowed to be distributed in this way? Is
the 30 dollar charge for the library or for Lionel's legendary program ?
With a non-commercial clause it's very difficult to know where to draw the
line. If it's monetary then inflation degrades it, if it's ethical (eg
charity) then there is the constant issue of misinterpreting the rules. I'm
interested in any ideals anyone has on this.
> 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.
This I think we'd all like to see this. In the internet age open development
projects, such as this, rely on copyright law (which relies on knowing who
the authors are) to grant the public the rights to carry on with the
development work.
> 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.
A point I raised in another post applies here too, when you are given 'copy'
of a part by an author under a set of rules (the license) these are the
rules that always apply to that 'copy'.
So once an author has given permission to the terms covered by the license
they cannot revoke those rights on your copy at a later date.
Hence why IMHO the license needs to be fair to the authors in not requiring
them to have permanent faith that all future ldraw.org to end user licenses
will
be to their liking.
> 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 believe this is covered in the initial 'Intent' by
"No restriction on usage. Users should be able to do whatever they like
(including using the parts as input to creation of a competing format)
subject
only to the above provisos about identification, without restriction and
without payment of fee, even if they use the parts in a commercial work."
That should allow anyone (not just the official ldraw.org processes) to
alter
the parts to agree with an official name (should a list ever be forthcoming
from
Lego :-) )
> 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.
This is a shame, but from a legal and ethical standpoint if an author cannot
be contacted (and permission granted) then their work cannot be distributed
under any new license or method. :-(
> 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.
The simplest answer (as I keep banging on about) is to get it right.
Large public participation projects such as Linux, the apache webserver
(that ldraw.org and lugnet.com run on) etc have the authors of the work
give their rights to the public.
I still see no practical reason why ldraw.org needs to act as
a copyright broker in these matters. The stated possibility of
copyright law changes are moot as these would also affect any
license granted to ldraw.org by the part authors (as pointed
out by Jacob).
I think it would be ldraw.org's finest hour when they ask the part
authors to give open development rights to the ldraw community
(the general public).
> >
> > 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.
It's a large and difficult topic, which is why it seems so strange to
me that ldraw.org seems to wish a complex dual licensing strategy
thats seem so different to every open development project that I know of.
Especially so when you review the previous threads on the matter, only one
mentions a dual license approach.
I realise this may sound odd, but perhaps the best way to accomplish
some of ldraw.org goals, of fostering development and use, is to open
as much as possible to the public, then take a hands-off approach and
see what developes.
This is why to me the Dual/Single license idea
( Dual 'Author to ldraw.org' and 'ldraw.org to public')
( Single 'Author to public')
is much more than an implementation issue, it goes right to the core
of what rights the public receives and what rights the authors want
to give to the public.
Oh and one final implimentation point that may have been missed by the
SteerCo, the license chosen will have to apply to parts on an individual
basis as the parts are individually copyrighted. You cannot license the
library as a whole as it is a collection of copyrighted works.
Peter
PS Oh dear, I seem to have written another huge long post again. I
hope people go to the effort of reading this far, because they take
ages to write :-)
[1] Names/Stories invented to protect the innocent/guilty.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) How are parts individually copyrighted? Actually, what exactly is a 'part'? Is a shock absorber a single part, or an assembly of several parts? How about a minifig torso (as they exist in lego sets)? If you want to talk about have to copyright (...) (20 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
