| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 02:46:22PM +0000, Kevin L. Clague wrote:
<snip>
> 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.
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....
presumably because they are (for the most part) langauge independent. I wonder
if LEGO uses numbers for compound parts (like pneumatic switches that have four
parts)?
<snip>
> > 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.
This makes sense to me.
>
> > 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?
I'll speak for myself here, not SteerCo ....
None now that I think about it a bit. In fact IMHO, I don't want it to be too
easy to change the license. This would reduce the frequency of changes by
increasing the effort needed to approve a change and grant no group special
powers.
>
> Dan
Kevin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
