 | | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) The spirit of what I'm trying to get at is this: if someone wants to read LDraw into a proprietary format, shouldn't they also write LDraw? Taking an open format and importing it into a closed format, without a way to write back to the open (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) The GPL does not require re-submission to the original source. (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) Sorry - my mistake. (...) 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. (20 years ago, 8-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) You are corrrect. Re-submission is not required. Library changes only need to be published. [snip] (...) Agreed. It is bunch of work for just about everybody involved. However, the result is typically better than if you go off on your own. (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) Understood. (...) Agreed. (...) As long as people understand the trade-offs. Adding redistribution restriction clauses is tricky and hard to get right. Frequently people can work around them. (...) It is quite possible, although I doubt that (...) (20 years ago, 6-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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
|
(...) (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 (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Non-commercial clause (was Re: License Intent )
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) It is very hard to define what commerical vs. non-commercial use is as the examples above demonstrate. One of the best ways to ensure that part authors do not feel "ripped off" is to ensure that the library is alwasys freely (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
I have to agree (and I know as a non-part author myself other than pathetic attempts which never saw the light of day by point will be held in less regard than those of actual offical part authors') that all parts should be open source. Not that (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) As a parts author who is likely to go inactive to the future (parts authoring, I've noticed, comes in spurts), I'd like to see the following: License dictates that any future changes need author approval. A majority of authors approving is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) So exactly how would someone release a rendering in complience with open source ? The DAT file associated with the render is not subject to the open source rules (since it is not a derivative work but merely references the library as a tool) (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) (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, (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) 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.... (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Is a non commercial clause part of the SteerCo's intent? It wasn't mentioned in the initial post or in Larry's update. Could you clarify for me? Discounting the use of rendered parts in commercial products, eg. Larry selling ldraw rendered (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
I think that we shouldnt say "you cant distribute the library and charge for it" but instead do what e.g. GPL does and allow selling it but with the licence (which includes the right to freely redistribute the covered works) applying to it (so if I (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Actually, redhat stopped shipping free linux (with the exception of Fedora, which isn't supported by Redhat anymore) - if you want to get RHL, you have to pay for it now. So it's not only for the media/documentation/support anymore. (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) 1) That is Red Hat's business model, but not always or exclusively. For example, Red Hat used to make a product named MetroX (I can't remember if it replaces XFree86 or a window manager), and buying a Red Hat CD gave you the right to install (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I think that the analogy "computer program source" is to "compiled executable" as ".dat file" is to "rendered image" is, mostly, valid. In both cases, you take the source, run it through one of many programs (which may indeed give different (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) It wouldn't. But I would (could) prevent him (and everybody else) from distributing renderings that includes parts from the Parts Library, since these are derivative works of the parts in the Parts Library. (...) Agreed. But Larry's problem is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I want to address just this point for now. I don't see how ensuring the Parts Library is open would prevent Larry (or anyone else) from distrbuting a LDraw file commercially. Due to the nature of the LDraw file system, I would not consider an (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) My understanding about that was that the charge was a media charge, not a charge for the library or work itself. In particular I thought a lot of the revenue that Red Hat receives is for support. Personally I could see some far fetched (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I am not sure I mind allowing SteerCo/LDraw.org to relicense my parts under a different license, but I definitely don't want to give SteerCo/LDraw.org any special rights. That would also be a violation of point 5 in The Open Source Definition (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) <blink> How is the second item (a) a "protection" and (b) required by "the fundamental goals of Ldraw.org"? I would observe that Linux and the GNU Project seem to have done fine, despite frequent commercial redistribution for a charge (by Red (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) revise the (...) Yes, we're putting a lot of effort into getting this right. So, there shouldn't be any forseeable _major_ changes. To cite one example, IP law is continuously evolving; there may come a time when a change is required due to a (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) This is a tough one Dan. Before becoming a member on the SteerCo, I never gave licensing much thought, but I'm getting up to speed now. There are a number of issues about licensing as wel can tell by the many conversations from the past and (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I'm extremely adverse to a future SteerCo having the ability to change the terms of the EndUser license at will, especially after we're putting all this effort into getting it correct now. For an example, could the SteerCo give some examples (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Sorry, I was a bit too terse here. This refers to how we start. Do we have a way to migrate all the parts in, or do we have to get explicit recertification from each author of each and every part (many parts currently in the library hvae (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Sorry, I missed typed. I meant to say "If possible, I'd like to see a method by which we can revise the licence but not have to get explicit agreement from every author." I with Tim's above statments. -Orion (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I think I disagree here. One of the problems we have right now is when we implement the license, we will have to explicitly seek each author's approval. Some authors will be unreachable, which means we won't be able to gain their perimssion to (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Yes. If possible, I'd like to see a method by which we can revise the licence but have to get explicit agreement from every author. (...) I want the ability to evolve the library. What I'm worried about is an author pulling their part out of (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Wasn't there a question if an author agrees to distribute the part under a specific license? As in, if you change the license, do you need to get permission from the authors, etc? (...) Are we still allowing us to rename parts? What about (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
FTX and me are not getting along tonite. In the interests of not having words disappear I am posting this in plain text. Apologies for the dups and cancels. In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote: In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jun-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Not a bad idea I guess. Not a bad idea at all. I'm comfortable with meanwhile making it clear by signature though. (basically, if a post is signed with all 5 of our names, it's official, else it's not) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Maybe there's a need for a Lugnet user "LDraw.org SteerCo" so members of the SteerCo don't have to continue posting such disclaimers. Maybe limit posting range to CAD tree (maybe even ldraw tree?) and maybe announce. ROSCO (Added (...) (20 years ago, 29-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
What follows is my personal reply not offical position of SteerCo. (...) I agree. We missed this goal, and it is indeed important. (...) True. And sort of false. Sometimes (take the change in the 9V train wheelset recently) there is a need to have (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote: snip (...) Larry: I think you missed an important user goal. The user wants assurance that parts will not disappear from the library when it is updated. The user has typically invested a great deal (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) The license draft included in my post was merely done to demonstrate that the language needed to license the people described is possible. I've condensed most of my points, and some new ones, into a new post that I've posted in reply to the (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
This is post to sum up my ideas before I pop off on holiday for a few days. 1) Consider making the license apply to more than just parts or the parts library. This would allow things like documentation or software to be distributed too. 2) I would (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) The tiling shouldn't effect the stud logos. I'm not sure why I had them turned off; probably doing some performance measurements between current LDView and "next-gen LDView". I'll have to wait until I get home to verify for sure that they (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: WARNING: Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) Super! But, what happened to the stud logos? The tiling doesn't mess them up somehow, does it? That would look sooo good with bump mapped stud logos. ;^) Don (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Whoops! Didn't mean the warning part in the previous subject
|
|
(...) Thanks for the warning, Travis, I'll be cautious of your future ideas ;-) -Tim (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Whoops! Didn't mean the warning part in the previous subject
|
|
I was going to post the image directly in the message, and was going to put "WARNING: large inline image" in the subject. However, I changed my mind and put a thumbnail in instead. Sorry about any confusion over the WARNING part. --Travis (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | WARNING: Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) OK, I updated LDView (haven't released the update yet) to support images up to 4096x4096 via tiling, whether or not your video card can go that high. I have a sample generated at 2400x1800--and then resized to 800x600--that can be seen by (...) (20 years ago, 27-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Thanks Tim. The minimal requirements you speak of are incorporated in the Bylaws (in the goals of the organization section) already. Bylaws can be changed but I think anyone proposing such a change would be shouted down and rightly so. Because (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I'd like to add to this one. It became clear to me in a recent conversation that this goal should be more defined. When authors submit parts to LDraw.org, it should be under the understanding that LDraw.org will always distribute their parts (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) Oh yeah, and bringing in the near and far clip planes also helps, especially with a perspective projection. Orthographic projections give me less of a problem with the Z-bleeding. Maybe you should add an ortho mode. Don (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) I thought we fixed that. (2 URLs) (...) Nope. I have the same problem. Possibly even worse with antialiased lines. I give them an extra bump forward beyond the polygon offset. More bits in your Z buffer reduces the symptoms somewhat. (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) The difference is that multisample AA only samples the texture once per pixel, while supersample samples the texture once per sample. This makes multi-sample AA significantly faster any time you're in a fill-rate limited situation. (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote: (snip) I need to go back through the post and read it more carefully before I respond in depth. However, quickly... Thanks for sharing another license draft, but we really *really* would like to get (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) <snip> I've taken the chance to read the threads mentioned earlier in this thread. And I've made a version of the license (based on the previous Steve Bliss version) that handles both author->ldraw.org requirements and author->EndUser (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) What's the difference between supersample and multisample antialiasing? There was a setting in the control panel about some sort of ***sample antialiasing, but I was afraid to change it because it gave a sharp warning when I selected it. (...) (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) The technical detail is that LDView requires the video card/video driver to support the WGL_ARB_multisample OpenGL extension. The MX cards don't support that. (I think this is because they only support supersample antialiasing.) However, if (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) I have a 9700 Pro, and it works fine up to 2048x2048. However, it starts doing really odd things when I go higher (I'll have to look into that). What driver version do you have installed? (It shouldn't matter, but I can't think what else would (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote: [snip] (...) Just tacking on a note of agreement here. -Tim (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) Well first of all there are different things being granted. An author grants rights to a particular part (each time he or she uploads that part), not the entire library. The user gets rights granted to the entire library as a whole. However, (...) (20 years ago, 26-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) If you can get the Full Screen Antialiasing (FSAA) to work then you've accomplished pretty much the same thing as the x3/shrink method. I only get "none" for an FSAA choice in the preferences dialog though. I'm not sure what minimum hardware (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) I've been fiddling with LDView and I can't seem to render images larger than 1020x688 (my screen resolution is 1024x768). Does this mean that I can't render images larger than my current screen resolution? What I did with LDGLite was render a (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I also can't understand the reason for two licenses. With one license ldraw.org and the community as a whole gain the same rights to modify/redistribute/buildupon the community provided library. The license described in (URL) I think be ideal (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I can't see the reason for this. Why shouldn't any user of the parts files have the same rights as LDraw.org? What special permissions does LDraw.org need, which it would be problematic to grant to all the users? Play well, Jacob (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
(...) I see one problem with this. It would mean that files not moved into the new library couldn't be updated, short of being re-written from scratch. I don't think that's a good idea. Of course, maybe that already happens when authors can't be (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) 1. Download and install LDView 2.1 (if you don't already have it). 2. Run LDView, open any model, then set all the settings up to get the look you want for the contest. I would recommend enabling antialiased lines and FSAA (if your video card (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: License Intent
|
|
One thing I touched upon a while ago that may be useful, is creating an entirely NEW library, with the same format, and only adding primitives and parts as authors give their consent to the new licence. This would allow the current "complete" (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | License Intent
|
|
Vision As promised previously, the Steering Committee would like to share our thoughts on licensing goals. We think it's important that any license, copyright, trademark, trade dress or other legal construction be done in the spirit of the overall (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX) !
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) now that LDRAW.org officials render all entries i have a question or 2 1 can the user submit camera angle coordinates? 2 what radiosity settings will u use 3 can a user specify color codes for the model (ie "257" = 90% transparent blue / rbgt (...) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
(...) Have you tried ldview yet. I'd think you should be able to come up with a script that generates some real quality output. Travis gave some tips in a recent thread. (URL) (20 years ago, 25-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Ideas for next MOTM contest
|
|
I like to solicit ideas for the rendering style used in next month's Model of the Month contest. I'm so pleased with the way this month's renderings turned out that I'm seriously considering using LDGLite full time but I thought I'd get some input (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Because it is a bad idea. It requires that the parts authors put an enormous trust in those they sign over copyright to. (...) I have refused to do that for the GNU project and I will do the same for LDraw.org (but I don't think I have written (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Numbers Report - 20 May 2004
|
|
(...) Sorry for the typo......... :/ (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Numbers Report - 20 May 2004
|
|
Stats for Unofficial Files 105 certified files. 162 files need admin review. 412 files need more votes. 415 have uncertified subfiles. 214 held files. Total Files: 1,308 Comparison with Prev. Report: 2004-05-20: 105 / 162 / 412 / 415 / 214 (1,308) (...) (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Licenses... some background
|
|
Longtime fans of the LDraw format and the LDraw system of tools know that this current discussion around licensing is by far NOT the first time the topic came up. The discussion is currently sort of disjointed in my personal view (and that of (...) (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) The only problem with that is getting permission from authors that have *already contributed*. Many are no longer contactable, and of those that are, there may be some that don't want their work owned by Ldraw.org. You'd effectively need to (...) (20 years ago, 20-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Why dont we do what the Free Software Foundation does with the GNU project. Basicly, everyone wanting to contribute code signs something stating that they hand over copyright to GNU. We do the same thing, with gaurantees in the contract that (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) While this is true of the library as a whole, it isn't true of individual files. Even when an author gets a part officially into the library, I believe they are still the owner, and they're certainly the author. --Travis (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) There is a lot of misunderstanding about the general topic of copyrights. I strongly recommend that the SteerCo undertake the effort to learn more about copyrights, since copyright law is the fundamental underpinning of all redistribution (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) That would (as I understand things) be impossible from a legal point of view. (...) Maybe. But that would then require that all the parts authors formally transferred their copyright to LDraw.org. This is possible, but parts authors living in (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) All the individual parts files authors. I.e. you would have to get aproval from each individual parts file author. Jacob (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Yes. Except that "public domain" is a concept that doesn't exist outside USA. (...) If you send Steve Bliss an e-mail, where you tell him that he (as LDraw.org Parts Library Head Honcho) is free to choose which license your parts files are (...) (20 years ago, 19-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Introducing the 2004-2005 LDraw.org Steering Committee
|
|
Introducing the 2004-2005 LDraw.org Steering Committee It is our great pleasure to introduce ourselves as the first elected LDraw.org Steering Committee. Over the past few days, we have been settling into our roles, doing housekeeping, and orienting (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.org, lugnet.cad, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX) !!
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) I imagine we would define the author of the Parts Library as LDraw.org? The point for me is, parts authors are submitting their work towards the community effort. It makes much more sense to me that the community organization licenses out the (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Would it simplify things for part authors who don't care about the license to declare their parts to be public domain? Because I really don't want to be bothered wrestling over a license for the handful of files I had anything to do with. Don (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) The only blurry point I see with those is the clause: "Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the author." Who is the author of the parts library? ROSCO (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Good point. Both of them are fine with me. I think I prefer the Attribution-ShareAlike license, if I have to make a choice between the two. It seems like if would be a good idea, if the parts library maintainers set up a poll among the parts (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) I know the license has been discussed for a long time, but to add my two cents; I'd really like to see the parts library use a Creative Commons license, specifically the Attibution-ShareAlike license ((URL)) or the plain old Attribution (...) (20 years ago, 18-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) The initial step is to transfer these parts file to a special pool which continues to be distributed under the existing (but rather muddy) conditions that the parts library until now has been distributed under. Second, somebody (responsible (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) Do you have thoughts on how to deal with parts whose authors have been out of touch, and are unreachable? Any idea how many parts that affects, if say, we can't reach them and get them to agree to the license? -Tim (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) Yes it's deffinately there, I must have misread the page. I've tracked down the quote that was was looking for too :) "With LDraw-dot-org going more and more formal making sure that our hobby doesn't get ruled too much.", Willy Tschager. Peter (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) I removed the artilce form the front page as it is no longer needed. You can, however, access all the news articles via the News Archive link (you may have to click the See All link to get to the really old articles). -Orion (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Peter Howkins wrote: More on the rest of this later. (probably in a separate thread which focuses on the license issue) (...) I'm not sure what you mean. I just checked and the candidate summary article (290) is still (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) Glad to hear there was a fast decision :) and you right it's not a big deal, it's just I hate the idea that stuff like this would take up lots of time. (...) The only issue I can see with PD is that the part authors might object to someone (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: library license
|
|
(...) I think Steve Bliss already has prepared something very similar to the zlib license. It should basically just be a matter of getting all the contributors to agree on it. Jacob (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | library license
|
|
(...) I'd also recommend Public Domain, or something really short and simple such as the zlib license. Do you think it does enough to encourage contributions back into the original library? The zlib/libpng License Copyright (c) <year> <copyright (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Shortname and major focus of SteerCo (was Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) - We chose SteerCo as the short form, but we didn't think it was such a huge topic that it warranted a special announcement, so we didn't make a special announcement about it. (...) - We are focused on licensing as the first major task after (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Steering Committee results
|
|
(...) Whatever it's called could it be called something quickly, before you reinforce every bad opinion I have about decisions made by committee. You have more important things to sort out such as a parts library license. My opinion is they should (...) (20 years ago, 17-May-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
