Subject:
|
Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:24:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
926 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Wayne Gramlich wrote:
> ... Since all of the parts are individually released under a creative
> commons attribution license ...
They are? The proposed CA doesn't say that, and that's not (necessarily) its
intent.
The CA is about the author granting LDraw.org a distribution license, along with
further protections.
Now, maybe that's what we *should* be talking about -- when an author
contributes work to LDraw.org, s/he must agree to license the work under the
CCAL.[1]
How useful is the CCA[L] to LDraw.org as a distribution agreement? In the
'lawyer readable' text, it differentiates "collective works" (which the
LDraw.org libary is) from "derivative works".
--
Steve
1) Why not the Share-Alike flavor?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) I'm not really sure what the CA says at this point in time. I was basing my statement off of the "Moving the LIcense Forward" message that Tim posted. (URL) In short, Tim stated that the both a CCAL (Createive Commons Attribution License) and (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| I've been away the past week, hence my lack of contribution until now... What problem does the CA solve? Since all of the parts are individually released under a creative commons attribution license, there is nothing to prevent LDraw.Org (or me for (...) (20 years ago, 20-Jul-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
