Subject:
|
Re: Moving the License Forward
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:47:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2635 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > The author retains all rights to the parts submitted except for the right of
> > redistribution.
>
> 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
True.
> > By submitting parts to the LDraw.org Parts Library by way
> > of the Parts Tracker mechanism, the Author agrees to grant LDraw.org the
> > non-exclusive right to distribute said parts in perpetuity, to the public,
> > under the Creative Commons Attribution License.
>
> Besides 'non-exclusive', you might want to consider inserting 'irrevocable',
I think the "in perpetuity" phrase above fills this
> 'no charge' (or 'paid-up no cost', or whatever).
That's good.
> And rather than explicitly mentioning the CCAL, it might be better to keep it
> generic - something like "under a license determined by LDraw.org to achieve the
> following goals: (list of goals)"
I think this is good but others might balk at the non-specificness of terms
> > If in the future, LDraw.org leadership deems it necessary to change the
> > license the Parts Library is distributed under, the Author agrees to the
> > following process for securing permission to make the change.
> >
> > A majority of authors approving the change is required for the change to be
> > enacted.
>
> How are you identifying authors? Anyone who's signed up as an author? Anyone
> who's got a '0 Name:' tag in an official part?
The fist paragraph of the agreement defines "Author" as anyone who submits a
part
> > Authors will be contacted and asked to respond to the request using any of
> > the four available responses:
> >
> > - Approval.
> > - Rejection.
> > - Abstain.
> > - No response.
> >
> > All reasonable attempts to contact the author will be deemed made when
> > there are public announcements posted on LDraw.org and LUGNET (where LUGNET
> > is the primary location of LDraw.org-related public discussion), and an
> > email message is sent to the author using the address on record.
> >
> > After sixty (60) days, if no response is received from the author, it will
> > count as an abstaining vote.
> >
> > An abstaining vote indicates that the author will authorize his/her
> > submissions under the new license terms. Abstaining votes will not count
> > towards the total for which a majority will be measured. The majority will
> > be calculated after the 60 day period has expired. A majority will be
> > deemed reached if the number of
> > approval votes is greater than the number of rejection votes.
>
> Instead of all this, just list the goals of the license (like I stated above),
> and plan on never changing them.
>
> > Authors may pre-approve LDraw.org to make license changes through a
> > checkbox at the bottom of this agreement.
>
> This idea is evil, and should be dropped.
Now that I think about it, I agree
> > The above provision serves as an assurance to the user that parts will not
> > disappear from the library in the future unless there are technical reasons
> > to do so, protecting their investment of time spent creating and sharing
> > virtual models using the parts.
>
> Instead of 'above provision', make a specific reference. Do you mean the
> checkbox clause? The whole thing about license-change-approval?
Sounds good
> > By submitting parts to the Parts Tracker, the Author grants permission to
> > other authors to modify their work and resubmit the revised work to the
> > library. LDraw.org members may create derivative works of submitted parts,
> > using in whole or in part the code from the submitted parts for the
> > purposes of creating additional parts to submit to the library.
> >
> > LDraw.org is under no obligation to distribute the library, and may suspend
> > distribution for any length of time as it sees fit.
>
> As I mentioned in another post, I think this line needs to be fleshed out a wee
> bit.
I'll respond to that post instead of here.
- Orion, speaking for myself.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
