Subject:
|
Re: License Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:41:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1321 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > 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.
> 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 actually represent LEGO elements, at least that's not
> their stated intent, right? It's just coincidence that they come out the same?
>
> What is the desired outcome?
Well, my hope is twofold: I don't want the LDraw crew to have to accomodate my
project under the official LDraw License, and I don't want to have to
restructure my project to accommodate the official LDraw License!
I don't expect it to be a big deal, really, but I thought it worth mentioning.
The clean room analogy is a good one (aside from the non-clean status of the
desktop where I do my DATwork). If that analogy is satisfactory for all
involved, then so be it.
Maybe another analogy, though less cut-and-dried, entails artistic
representation. If you and I both paint/draw/render two distinct but very
similar real-world objects, then I can't see that either of us is at fault for
duplicating the other's work. This meshes nicely with your "coincidental
outcome" idea.
Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule as Secretary of State to
answer.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
