Subject:
|
Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 22 Jul 2004 06:55:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
721 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss wrote:
> 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.
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.
<http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=3214>
In short, Tim stated that the both a CCAL (Createive Commons
Attribution License) and a CA (Contribution Agreement) would
be used.
> The CA is about the author granting LDraw.org a distribution license, along with
> further protections.
Alas, the devil is in the details. LDraw.Org can not attach the CCAL
to a part file, only the copyright owner can do so. My comments
on this thread are that LDraw.Org can only attach a license to a
part file if the copyright has been transferred to LDraw.Org.
> 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]
In my personal opinion, I believe that is the better way to go.
Note that my opinion is not nearly as important as the collective
opinion of all of the part authors (or alas, in some cases their
estate.)
With regards to the Create Commons Share-alike license, I kind
of like that license. However, anybody that is truly determined
to not share will be able to easly work around the sharing provisions
of the license. For example, suppose that I decide to add normals
for all polygons in LDR files. The best way is to add a new normal
command to the file. The share-alike provision will require that I
share the normals when I redistribute. However, if I am determined
to keep the normals only in *my* redistribution, I can easily put the
normals in a side file. These files will be "mine" and are not covered
by the share-alike clauses. While it is tempting to "force" people to share,
the really determined folks won't. So, I would advise against the
share-alike license for an ASCII product like LDR files. It is better
to rely on social pressure to get anti-social people to share.
Continuing the example, if I decide to sell my super whiz-bang
normal modified side files, people can agree to boycott the product.
> 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".
The CCAL is great. It allows LDraw.Org or anybody else to create a
collective work containing whatever parts they deem appropriate.
For example, LDraw.Org could put together a library that is then
redistributed by MLCAD and LeoCAD. Alternatively, MLCAD
could choose to create their own collective work.
It's kind of late, hopefully, I haven't mangled my thoughts too greatly
-Wayne
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Contributer Agreement Version 3
|
| (...) 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 -- (...) (20 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
