Subject:
|
Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Jun 2004 18:44:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3141 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:23:43PM +0000, Wayne Gramlich wrote:
> The more sticky problem that occurs is when somebody does an "embrace
> and extend" strategy. For example, suppose I take the LDraw.Org
> library and add surface normals for every polygon. For many rendering
> algorithms, the surface normals allow more efficient back-culling. As
> another example, suppose somebody figures out how to add connection
> information to all parts. Before you know it, everybody wants to use
> the embraced and extended library, not the official LDraw.Org library.
> Again, I see the way to ensure that this does not happen is for the
> LDraw.Org Standards Committee to agressively keep pushing the LDraw
> format forward so that everybody always wants to use the official
> version.
Wouldn't this problem be solved by the GPL approach, where any
modifications made have to be re-submitted to the original library?
This way, yes, you can make your cool changes, and sell them, but you
have to send the patches back to the original parts, where they can
either be integrated or not, depending on what the PT admins think.
By definition, a breakthrough in the format cannot be forced by the SC
or anyone else. If you come up with the great idea, there's no way the
SC can force the format to have the same breakthrough, not without your
help.
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
