 | | Contributer Agreement v2 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | Here's the CA v2. If you have criticism, please also offer a proposed solution. Summary of changes: - Added a 33% majority for passage instead of a simple majority - A general reordering and rewording of the entire document. The LDraw.org Steering (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | Some of my points are relatively minor/subtle, but it's better to bring them up now. (...) Instead of "parts", I would prefer "work" or some other term that's relatively generic. Not all files are actually part files -- besides the sub-part files (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) I'd like to request that future revisions be posted in a new thread. It would be easier to follow discussions that way. I'm making this request primarily because this thread has grown to over 100 messages. But it really applies to any "request (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Tim Courtney
|
| | | | | | (...) Good suggestion given the way LUGNET is set up now. My main reason for posting revisions in the same thread is so the discussions following the various revisions can be linked. But, you are right, when it grows to over 100, then it becomes (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I wish 100 was a user selectable option, or an option by group or something. But I don't know enough server internals to know if that's feasible. (...) One of the primary ways that I do LUGNET research (and the way I used to do the research on (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) Very good idea! (...) And it helps future readers when the linkage is spelled out explicitly. Steve (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Thanks! Maybe even crosslink, with the first post in the continued tree pointing (with an explicit label) back to the root of the previous tree too. (...) Yes! (20 years ago, 15-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | Here is my take on this second version of the license Peter (...) And you've changed the first EndUser license from Creative Commons Share Alike License [1] to Creative Commons Attribute License [2] I presume this was because of the ShareAlike (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) <snip> I like the rest of your comments so I've snipped them out. I do have a qustion on the below. (...) Isn't 3 redundant and cover by the 1? -Orion (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Peter Howkins
|
| | | | (...) Yes, you're right, a combo of 1 & 2 should cover 3. When I was trimming so much out of your license I should have been more careful in adding bits :) Can anyone think of anything that ought to be in 'Base Level' of rights ? Peter (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Contributer Agreement v2 —Orion Pobursky
|
| | | | (...) I'd like a no-cost restriction. In other words, anything covered can be distributed for free. This doesn't mean you can't charge, it just means that you don't have to charge. Or maybe all this is implied by the above? Do we need to explicitly (...) (20 years ago, 16-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| | | | |
