Subject:
|
Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:00:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3893 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Travis Cobbs wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > Good point. Perhaps an additional comment like:
> >
> > In order to avoid the listing of all contributing part authors it is sufficient
> > to give credit to "the LDraw Parts Library" in Derivative Works in lieu of such
> > a list.
> >
> > As an addition to the end of the licence?
>
> Maybe it's just me, but if renderings are considered derivative works, we need
> to seriously step back and think long and hard about whether or not we are OK
> with that. I personally think that forcing renderings to have text on them
> acknowledging that the parts came from the LDraw Parts Library is a serious
> restriction, and very different from how things are now. My understanding was
> that the intent in switching to the CA license was to force people who
> distributed the actual part files to be bound by it, NOT for people doing
> renderings. Am I mistaken that this was the original intent?
I agree, clarification on rendered images is needed. If a rendering using LDraw
parts is a derivative work, and derivative works are required to visibly display
credit, that's a problem. It won't show up on my renders; I don't burn "Credit:
Photoshop Dev Team" on images I make with Photoshop, there's no reason to put it
into LDraw-derived images.
- Kelly
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
| (...) As one of the CA's authors, my view on this is that you should state somewhere in your distribution of the image (i.e. on the web page hosting it, as a text file in a .zip, on the image itself, etc...) that the content were derived from the (...) (17 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
| (...) There is one significant difference between LDraw and Photoshop in that you pay for the right to use Photoshop without giving credit. That said I don't think we need to vandalise our images to put the credit in but I'm not completely averse to (...) (17 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
| | | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
| (...) While rendered images are Derivative Works, I do not think you would have to add anything such as a copyright notice to them. The language of the CALicense.txt paragraph 4.2 says to the extent reasonably practicable or at a minimum where you (...) (17 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
| (...) Maybe it's just me, but if renderings are considered derivative works, we need to seriously step back and think long and hard about whether or not we are OK with that. I personally think that forcing renderings to have text on them (...) (17 years ago, 18-Jan-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
57 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
|
|
|
|
