| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Although you can argue that people agreed to the distribution tacitly,
> because they submitted parts via the newsgroups or via the Parts
> Tracker...
Well, that's been our M.O. so far. So if we continue to distribute files under
that umbrella, we won't be in any worse shape than we are now.
> I agree. I just don't think we've come up with a better solution yet.
> Hopefully someone clever will spot the one we've missed so far! The
> problem with one library is that, to be fair, it sort of feels like we
> can't just wing it and say all the old stuff is OK without seeking some
> sort of permission from the authors (or their estates... sigh)
Yes. Agreed.
However, we can (and probably should) start labeling everything that is covered
under the new license. Add verbiage to the 0 LDRAW_ORG meta-statement (for
LDR/DAT files).
Also, we can explicitly state in the license that some content has been
grandfathered in, based on previous (implicit) agreements.
So we could reasonably distribute a single archive, consisting of mixed material -- some of it properly licensed, some of it legacy. Potentially, someone could come around and demand that their legacy contributions be yanked. Considering the unlikeliness of that happening, I feel we can probably deal with it as it comes along.
But the real issue remains: how do we update material that hasn't been properly
included in the new licensing scheme? :/
> > Also, we don't necessarily have a record of author->file contributional
> > relationship.
> > In other words, not all changes have been logged.
>
> Going forward that seems like it ought to be addressed if we can.
Going forward, we're OK. It's the pre-PT events that would be un(der)recorded.
Every time a file is submitted to the PT, the file and submitter are logged.
Also, we keep a copy of every version of every file contributed. So we could
diff version 5 from version 6 to see what changes Joe made to a file.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: License Intent
|
| (...) I agree. I just don't think we've come up with a better solution yet. Hopefully someone clever will spot the one we've missed so far! The problem with one library is that, to be fair, it sort of feels like we can't just wing it and say all the (...) (20 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
