 | | Moving the License Forward —Tim Courtney
|
| | | Everyone - First I want to offer the Steering Committee's apologies for the delay in moving this issue forward. We've spent some time discussing the license and now we are ready to present a proposed solution for comments and feedback. After talking (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw) !!
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | | (...) (URL) I can see no difference in the human readable summary, it's likely the differences are in the legal version. This seems a good an open license. (...) Could your explain your thinking behind why you believe this second license is (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) There has been a lot of discussion on this already. We carefully considered all the discussion and decided that two licenses offer the best approach for maximum flexibility. The text of the posted draft license itself highlights a key thing (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Jonathan Wilson
|
| | | | | (...) What is the reason for requiring this clause in the licence? (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | (...) In case we find a part that's broken or wrong, we are under no obligation to release it. -Orion (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But that's not what the text says. The one real reason to have two agreements (AFAIK) is that we don't want to treat the library is simply an archive of all the individual files -- we want it to have a unique identity. So using 'file' and (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I don't follow but see below (...) I think that: a,b,d are covered by the CA "no obigation" clause c is covered by the "Author grants permission to other authors to modify their work" clause but I agree that a rewording may be in order (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The text says 'library', not 'files' or 'contributions'. When the term 'library' is used in the CA, it should be discussing the entire library as a single entity. If that specific statement is meant to refer individual files, it should say (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | (...) It could be for reasons as simple as the server being temporarily off-line. Greetings, Jacob (who doesn't think he'll accept the redistribution agreement) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | (...) Jacob - I think you understand these things a lot better than me. Could you explain your thoughts? (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I haven't thought it properly through yet, but I would like to have some assurance that either the basic characteristics of the license will remain unchanged (for example through a fixed "human readable" version of the license) or that I as an (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's hard to put into legalese, I fear, but I agree that's an important concept. I think we all agree once we have this fixed there won't be, and won't need to be, change at the macro level. How WOULD we go about codifying that idea? (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Wouldn't putting something in the CA, with the whole section explaining how the license can be changed in the future, something like this: While the library's license can be changed in the future using this procedure, any new license will have (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I like that. I'll tkae that into consideration with the new draft I'm writing. -Orion (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I like it. :) That's almost like what I asked for before (URL) Steve (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | (...) I agree with Dan. As one of the more important people that need to accept the final resolution, I'd like to know exactly what you object to or what you think needs to be changed. -Orion (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Do you mean the entire "Contributor's agreement", or just the "auto-approve changes checkbox"? Steve (who almost certainly won't be accepting that checkbox) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | | | (...) The entire "Contributor's agreement". If I accept the "Contributor's agreement" in its current form, I will probably also check the "auto-approve changes checkbox". Voting about my copyright doesn't make sense to me. Either I accept the risk (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, it's not really voting about my copyright, it's voting about retroactively accepting changes to the agreement between myself and LDraw.org. My issue is the checkbox pretty much invalidates the entire 'making changes' section of CA. If a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Jeff Findley
|
| | | | | (...) I would hope that any changes made to a part file would include attribution to the original author(s). Perhaps this should be spelled out in the license? Other than this one little issue, I like what I see. Putting these two licenses into (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) That might be a good idea. We do have standing policies for most situations; everything from making minor fixes to using someone else's code in a new part to rearranging an existing file into new file(s) to entirely rewriting an existing part. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | (...) Standing policies, yes, but programmatic enforcement, no. Too much in this arena relies on you and I applying those policies correctly in the parts updates. And there is always going to have to be some flexibility that needs admin judgement. (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | BTW, for everything I wrote earlier in this thread, c/Name:/Author:/. Thanks. (...) I'm open to more programmatic enforcement, but I'm not seeing what that would be like. For this discussion, I'd be happy if there is mention that attribution (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) Skip the above. The C.A. can't take away any rights of the author, and shouldn't. Several people maintain webpages of 'their' parts, and they should be able to do so. If people want to distribute their own parts, more power to them (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | | (...) Speaking personally [1]: For the initial CA we should contact everyone who's got Submit rights, plus anyone named in a Name: line for whom we have contact details. New users should be asked to accept the CA as part of them getting Submit (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Understood. (...) That seems a little harsh to an author under this kind of situation ... 1) Person A submits part to parts tracker, agrees to CA. 2) Part has small issue with it preventing it from being approved quickly 3) Ldraw SteerCo (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Chris Dee
|
| | | | | | | | (...) OK - this is a timing thing - we can fine tune the qualification criteria. What I was trying avoid was people who have expressed a desire to author parts, yet never got around to doing so, having a strong influence in the distribution license. (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | (...) True. (...) I think the "in perpetuity" phrase above fills this (...) That's good. (...) I think this is good but others might balk at the non-specificness of terms (...) The fist paragraph of the agreement defines "Author" as anyone who (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | | (...) I am uncomfortable with the specific phrasing and reference to the Parts Tracker. Consider the situation[1] where author Alpha creates a part and publishes it on the Web. Author Beta then contacts Alpha and asks that it be submitted to the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | | (...) No reponse isn't a response ;) but you cover it below in how they become abstentions. (...) I'm not sure I agree with a simple majority has enough weight behind it given the importance of the outcome of the vote. Imagine this outcome Abstains (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) Whilte you make a good argument, I think you're leaving out something. It's the author's responsibility to maintain an address where LDraw.org can contact them on organizational business. Plus, LDraw.org announces important things like this (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | (...) I agree with the timeout, and that the authors need to maintain their email addr on record updated. I'm not sure we should discount Peter's note though, that right now we're setting up a system that by default will accept change - that is not (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) That kind of makes sense. I'm writing a new CA draft and I'll take that into consideration. -Orion (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Another thought - don't treat the 'no responses' and 'abstain' as identical. The actual abstain votes could be counted toward a total count, and the ayes would have to exceed a given fraction of that total. For example, we could require a 33% (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think that's a good idea, and it makes sense to me. Abstain becomes not exactly no (since it doesn't count against the measure), instead it means "I need more information" - which is a valid response, IMO. Oh, and I agree that the checkbox (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 'Evil' is a bit too strong of a word here, and I think it's an unfair labeling. The checkbox doesn't say that the author (not user) forsees the changes they're agreeing to, rather it says that they put their trust in the SteerCo to guide the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I was using Steve's word, but I believe we both meant it in the geeky sense of "should not exist", and not "is maliciously placed". Dan (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | | | (...) I admit my turnout values may have been optimistic :) But I still feel that a greater than 50.00000something percent positive vote ought to be needed to move away from something as good as the ShareAlike license. (...) What, at the risk of (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | | (...) positive (...) And I maintain, if there are not enough authors still active at a time this potential situation were to come up, It could be near impossible to make the change. If there were a situation where the change was needed, and there (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think the key word here is 'active'. If the requirement is that some percent of the ACTIVE authors actually are for a change, wouldn't that work for both of you? Dan (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think you might be on to something. What's a good definition of ACTIVE? Some ideas I had: a) did activity x within the last y time periods (x could be any of authored, reviewed, participated in a discussion or other) or b) responded to the (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | (...) <snip> (...) Quoting Yoda, "Hard to see, the future is". The ability to change the ShareAlike license is to hedge our bets against unforseen issues. If you are omnipotent (should I call you Q?), then you can see all forseeable issues and can (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | | | (...) And yet you appear to be trying to write one, the contributor agreement. Although I don't have any particular experience in writing licenses, I have done a fair bit of work with them, at one point my company required me to read and understand (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | (...) It would seem the general concensus that we need Licensing, so we need a license, even if it is hard to do. Agree? (...) Great. WHen you point out an issue with the license it is greatly appreciated that you provide an alternate solution to (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Willy Tschager
|
| | | | | (...) there is no way in getting me to agree to this clause if this also impleis that others may modify my work before it got certified. to make it clearer: no fixes to parts I submitted for the first time. (...) once if got official they might do (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | (...) Willy, I know how strong your feelings are about this particular subject but some don't feel this way. Is there some compromise that will allow both sides to be happy? -Orion (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Willy Tschager
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I won't burden steve with work, but two simple checkboxes at the PT's submit page saying: # Be aware that by touching my parts you will have to face the entire italian mafia and end up in nice brand new concrete boots # I'm not Willy, fix them (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Kevin L. Clague
|
| | | | | | | | (...) All humor aside, is this really a license issue, or a parts tracker policy issue? I know this has been a big issue in the past and I don't want to ignore it, but I'm not sure it is a license issue. It in some ways asks the question of when (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I think this is a PT policy issue and not a license issue. (...) Per the CA, upon submission to LDraw.org. -Orion (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I agree. (...) Currently LDraw.org has control once it is submitted, so the licence should be agreed to upon submission. You could set it up so authors only have to agree once a file is certified, before including it in the official library, (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Moving the License Forward —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm not sure what the history is here, but what happens to good parts that were almost completed, and need a few minor fixes, but the original author has no interest in it anymore? Should the part just sit in the PT forever? Should it be (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Contributer Agreement v2 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | Here's the CA v2. If you have criticism, please also offer a proposed solution. Summary of changes: - Added a 33% majority for passage instead of a simple majority - A general reordering and rewording of the entire document. The LDraw.org Steering (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | Some of my points are relatively minor/subtle, but it's better to bring them up now. (...) Instead of "parts", I would prefer "work" or some other term that's relatively generic. Not all files are actually part files -- besides the sub-part files (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) I'd like to request that future revisions be posted in a new thread. It would be easier to follow discussions that way. I'm making this request primarily because this thread has grown to over 100 messages. But it really applies to any "request (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) Good suggestion given the way LUGNET is set up now. My main reason for posting revisions in the same thread is so the discussions following the various revisions can be linked. But, you are right, when it grows to over 100, then it becomes (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I wish 100 was a user selectable option, or an option by group or something. But I don't know enough server internals to know if that's feasible. (...) One of the primary ways that I do LUGNET research (and the way I used to do the research on (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Very good idea! (...) And it helps future readers when the linkage is spelled out explicitly. Steve (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Thanks! Maybe even crosslink, with the first post in the continued tree pointing (with an explicit label) back to the root of the previous tree too. (...) Yes! (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | Here is my take on this second version of the license Peter (...) And you've changed the first EndUser license from Creative Commons Share Alike License [1] to Creative Commons Attribute License [2] I presume this was because of the ShareAlike (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) <snip> I like the rest of your comments so I've snipped them out. I do have a qustion on the below. (...) Isn't 3 redundant and cover by the 1? -Orion (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | (...) Yes, you're right, a combo of 1 & 2 should cover 3. When I was trimming so much out of your license I should have been more careful in adding bits :) Can anyone think of anything that ought to be in 'Base Level' of rights ? Peter (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) I'd like a no-cost restriction. In other words, anything covered can be distributed for free. This doesn't mean you can't charge, it just means that you don't have to charge. Or maybe all this is implied by the above? Do we need to explicitly (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
