 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
