| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> 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?
(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, people come
and go, or are incommunicado for long periods and resurface. The community
shouldn't suffer because people go away or lose interest.
Giving active participants the opportunity to sign off (or not) to future
license changes (if any are necessary) is good, and the timeout allows the
community to retain contributions of people who aren't around anymore.
> > > 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?
If LEGO (or any other creator of a proprietary LEGO CAD program) was able to
import LDraw, I would like the license to require their software also write to
LDraw.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) That would be great - but are you going to ask them also to distribute the latest copy of the library from their site? Or on any of the media they distribute? Is that something we want? The answer might be yes, but I don't think it should be. (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
