LDraw (www.ldraw.org) : 3163


CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 3163	3162 \| 3164

Subject:	Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date:	Sat, 5 Jun 2004 19:14:26 GMT
Viewed:	3524 times

In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote: > 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. (For those of you who do not know, GPL=Gnu Public License.) GPL is one strategy. I prefer an innovate over litigate strategy. The GPL is complex and in certain critical areas extremely vague. The GPL attempts to mandate innovation by requiring people to give back to the community. I think the better strategy is to have an active standards committee that ensures that the LDraw file format has always got the best features in it. For example, if the "embrace and extend" library has surface normals, and the standards committee adds surface normals to LDraw file format, which format will people write software for? the closed proprietary format or the open LDraw file format? > 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. I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say here. -Wayne

Message has 2 Replies:

		Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
(...) I agree that GPL might not be the right license to use here - I was just using it as an example of how the "extension" problem might be dealt with, as far as the license goes. Of course that we would always want the LDraw format to be the most (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

		Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
(...) It is my understanding of the GPL that no such re-submission is required. As long as you agree to the GPL terms and give appropriate credit to the original author, you can publish your mods as a separate work (or upgrade) under the GPL. (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 5-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

Custom Search