To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldrawOpen lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 3233
3232  |  3234
Subject: 
Re: Moving the License Forward
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:04:11 GMT
Viewed: 
2584 times
  
BTW, for everything I wrote earlier in this thread, c/Name:/Author:/.  Thanks.

In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Chris Dee wrote:
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.

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
standards exist within the community, and should/must be followed.

An extension to the Name: line to include the LDraw.org username would be
good - better and more future-proof than email address which some authors
include. In which case we should also extend that principle to the change
history.

Yes, that's a good idea.  Userids instead of names/initials in change history.
But only going forward -- change history lines should *never* be changed, once
they are written (especially after they appear in official files).

About the Author: tag.  Since we've basically got to build a new library from
the ground up, we *could* modify the entries in all the files.  Heck, we could
rewrite the headers to something (more) sensible.  And drop all the "~Moved to"
stubs.

*Ahem*  Or we could just require people to record these lines like:
0 Author: {real name} <{userid}>[, {description of contribution}]

However, <userid> could not be required (for older files) - the author in
question might not have a PT login.

Steve



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Moving the License Forward
 
(...) 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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR