 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) 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: 2nd LSC: Call for Nominations
|
|
(...) I can't accept the nomination. I don't think I have the temperament required for such a position. For instance, if I don't get my way with the spacelaunch brick currently under review, I think I'm gonna cry. So instead, could I nominate Travis (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) (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)
|
