To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldrawOpen lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 3168
3167  |  3169
Subject: 
Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:34:17 GMT
Viewed: 
2970 times
  
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 01:17:03PM -0400, Kyle McDonald wrote:
Wouldn't this problem be solved by the GPL approach, where any
modifications made have to be re-submitted to the original library?

The GPL does not require re-submission to the original source.

Sorry - my mistake.

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.

You don't have to send the changes back to the maintainers, you only
have to make the source of the changes freely available to everyone,
you're even allowed to charge a copying and handling fee.

Ok, yes, that was my point - you can't keep the changes to yourself, you
have to publish them, so that they could (in theory) be merged with the
original library.

--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com



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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR