| |
Let’s say that some well-meaning individual created a large number of DAT-based
parts representing the bricks of LEGO-compatible brands, including quite a few
of the more “basic” elements, such as the 2x4 brick, the 1x2 brick, the 2x8
plate, etc. Let’s also say that the author of these non-LEGO-based DAT-parts
made a conscious effort to recreate the parts from scratch, rather than copying
the existing DAT file and renaming it. And let’s say finally that these
recreated DAT-parts contained demonstrable difference in file content but were,
when rendered, visually very similar to existing, official LDraw elements. How
would this coincide with the proposed LDraw license, specifically as it pertains
to original authorship and subsequent usage?
In my view, since the parts are being created from scratch and can be shown to
contain fundamental differences, then there should be no problems of authorship
spillover. However, I can also see how the author of an LDraw part might find
the corresponding clone part to be “substantially identical” to the original.
How might this be reconciled? Interestingly, this seems like a nice virtual
analog to the real-world issue of clone vs. LEGO.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: License Question
|
| (...) This is just me speaking, no official standing in this post, but isn't this process very much like the "clean room reverse engineering" process used to circumvent IP by reinventing from scratch based just on the specs? Also these parts don't (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
