Subject:
|
Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:10:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3728 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Zachary Best wrote:
> ...here is my understanding of how the license in the CALicense.txt file
> will apply to parts:
>
> The part file is the Work, and each part file must include the license. Any
> model file which contains the part file will be a Collective Work, and that
> Collective Work must contain the license describing that it affects the part
> file. A rendering of the part file or any model file containing the part file
> will be a Derivative Work. When you create this Derivative Work and distribute,
> publicly perform, publicly display, or publicly digitally perform said
> Derivative Work you must include, to the extent reasonably practicable,
> information pertaining to the copyright of the Work, licensing information of
> the Work, and credit to the author of the Work.
>
> So, at the very minimum it seems that when you credit yourself as the author of
> any Derivative Work you must credit all the authors of the Works you used as
> well.
I wonder whether a model file really qualifies as a "collective work" under this
definition since an LDR file doesn't actually contain the parts definitions,
only references to them. (Unless of course, the external parts definitions are
"flattened" into the .LDR, which is uncommon.) Are the filenames themselves
somehow being copyrighted here? Seems like a stretch. Also completely
unenforceable unless you could prove which version of the parts library the
model author was using on their machine when they designed the model.
A render on the other hand does include a representation of the parts
definition, and would seem to meet the definition of a "derivative work."
If model authors are truly expected to name every author of every part in a
model, I hope that the tools at least facillitate this by auto-generating the
list of names from the model file.
It would be a shame if the new license had the effect of shifting the legal
burden from the tools authors (a relatively small group) onto the users (a much
larger group). I suspect that many users will be tempted to continue using the
old version of the tools and parts libraries instead of subjecting themselves to
the requirements of the new one.
> I'll try to answer any other questions, but again this is not legal advice.
> These are merely my opinions and should be treated as such.
Likewise, IANAL but I sometimes play one on the internet.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Contributor Agreement License details
|
| First, let me disclaim that this is not legal advice. It is merely my understanding of the CA License. I do have some legal knowledge of copyrights, but for any legal advice please contact and retain an attorney. Second, I don't know whether this is (...) (18 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
