Subject:
|
Re: Moving the License Forward
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 12 Jul 2004 20:56:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2804 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> > > > LDraw.org is under no obligation to distribute the library, and may suspend
> > > > distribution for any length of time as it sees fit.
> > > What is the reason for requiring this clause in the licence?
> >
> > In case we find a part that's broken or wrong, we are under no obligation to
> > release it.
>
> But that's not what the text says.
I don't follow but see below
> 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 'library' interchangeably is a
> real no-no, you know?
>
> Anyway, assuming the above statement is intended to address the contribution(s)
> made by an individual author, it needs to be expanded a bit. LDraw.org needs to
> have the freedom to do any of the following, as fits the needs of the
> organization: (a) reject the contribution, (b) accept the contribution, (c)
> modify the contribution as needed, in any way, without limit, (d) drop the
> contribution from the library.
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
> Assuming the above statement is actually about redistributing the library as a
> whole, the statement is accurate, but needs to be expanded (but possibly not in
> the contributor's agreement).
No, the CA is only what a part's author must agree to to submit a part. It's not intended to covered distribution of the library as a whole; that's covered under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike licence we've decided to use for distribution of the library as a unit.
-Orion (speaking for myself)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Moving the License Forward
|
| (...) 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)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
