 | | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Precisely. Tim (17 years ago, 3-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Wow! In my opinion, that's an extremely poor interpretation of "derivative works". Consider the model file. It most likely contains no actual bits of the LDRAW library. It simply contains references to the parts in the library, by names like (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) In the case of model files I agree it is muddy however a model file means little without the parts to use it. If people wish to try to sell LDraw files without an attribution they are welcome to do so and you are probably right that LDraw.org (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I disagree. A sculpture may contain obvious marks from a distinctive chisel, but is not a derivative of that chisel. Now if you make a new chisel based on the distinctive chisel, that's a derivative work. (...) Again, I disagree. We clearly (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) That is not a fair analogy. Arguably POVray (or ldglite or ldview) is the chisel but the parts are a necessary part of the final work. There is no way to use a typical LDraw file without the parts library to render a scene. (...) You haven't (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Actually I was thinking of the LDraw library as the chisel(s), and to be honest, I don't understand why it's an unfair analogy. It just seems obvious to me. But anyhow, look, I like Ldraw files and renders. I want to see more of them. And (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I figured you were which is why I called it unfair. Without the library the render cannot exist. Without the library the LDraw file is just a meaningless list of transformations and codes. (...) Which is precisely why we are stating we will (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Actually I'm fairly certain the folks at Lego could easily devise a way to import a model file into LDD on a PC with NONE of the official Ldraw files installed. They could then generate a rendering in LDD and publish that on the internet, (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Sorry, that doesn't work for me. The license describes how someone must behave; lack of prosecution for non-compliance doesn't erase the ethical imperative to follow the agreement. And, since the non-commercial disclaimer is not actually part (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) In that case I agree it wouldn't be a derivative work. I am becoming more and more convinced that an MPD isn't actually a derivative work. (...) If people are willing to go to the effort of making or using an alternate part library in order to (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I'm not sure I agree with the ethical imperative argument. There are plenty of old laws on statute books that no-one follows or expects to follow but are still there. Either way, ethical decisions are made on an individual basis (including the (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I agree. The way the readme puts it is not in accord with what the license requires. Furthermore, because there is a disclaimer in readme that it is not a license, that whole bit can and should be ignored and only the license followed. If (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) If you are referring to the non-pursuit section of the readme it is most definitely in accord with the license. As you say a license is only as good as its enforcement but stating a policy of enforcement does not change the license. As an (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) don, you wouldn't have a model file at all without the parts library. at least not without extreme effort because of the missing visual feedback. I'll give you some codes: CM051P09.dat, HF300P09.dat, CM060P14.dat, CM053P03.dat, CM250P02.dat (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote: [snip-snap] (...) the steerco has considered the option to change the license but considering that we weren't able to track down 18 people last time (URL) (we are still 33 parts behind in the rewrite (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Actually there is. Anton Raves' library comes immediately to mind. Using that you're not using any information from the LDRAW parts, only the placement information in the model file. And his is not the only library of Lego parts in the (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) This is definitely wrong! There is nothing unique with the LDRAW library. It doesn't have a special place in the universe - it's just another information collection. My BlockCAD program can load *some* LDRAW model files and render a picture (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) This is also not true. BlockCAD has its own part library, not at all connected to the LDRAW library, but BlockCAD *can* save a model in the LDRAW format, thereby making it possible to render a BlockCAD model with the LDRAW compatible programs. (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I did think of Anton Rave's library and LGEO but there aren't a lot of models which use exclusively parts from LGEO (I have never used Anton's library). Sure you can provide a counter-example and of course LDraw.org has no control over renders (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) They provide exactly that. *Counter examples* to your argumentation. If you don't know what to do with a counter example, that's your problem. In the mathematics world, *one* counter example is enough to make a 'proof' invalid. I invalidated (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
I missed this one at first. (...) What kind of language is that for a LDRAW official? Even if hiding behind '(in a personal capacity)'? I deplore this kind of 'argumentation' - you're just expressing your own opinion, and have no right calling the (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) It's quite condescending to express the view that alternative libraries are created/used just 'in order to avoid writing ...'. All of those alternatives were in existance long before the 'license'. Actually it sounds more like ldraw.org is (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Now this is more along the lines of what I'd consider a derivative work according to the license, but only if their part file library actually includes ldraw primitive files, or text copied from the parts or primitive files. If they just (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) hi anders, the readme is nothing than a human readable version of the legal text (which in the end tells us that lawyers are not human) and it is basically a copy of this: (URL) (the steerco haven't written it), we (the 2006/2007 steerco) (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Hi Anders, Please don't get all excited about the word rubbish. I'm OK with it. You and I are from a different generation and apparently "smack talk" is the language of the new generation. This was pretty mild by the new standard, so let's (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I hear you, but I still find it difficult to read posts like Tim's. It's important to me, I just couldn't let it slide. As you say, probably a sign of my age (celebrated my 53:rd birthday yesterday). (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I agree I shouldn't have used that word although it wasn't meant in a particularly offensive manner. Since Don did not seem to take it too badly I didn't apologise for it but had he I would have. And frankly there are more ways to be rude than (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Apparently with all the legal posturing going on here, people missed this. Seems to me there's no need to fret about anything. Use the tools as you always have and nothing bad will happen. Play on. Allister (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I wouldn't bother quoting the mathematical world at me. I'm well aware of what defines a mathematical proof or disproof. But... since you seem to wish to be pedantic I said what FURTHER point does it bring. The postulate was already disproved (...) (17 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Perhaps people would prefer if we changed that paragraph to something like this in the README Tim ---- LDraw.org is the sole entity responsible for enforcement of the Parts Library copyrights. LDraw.org does not consider rendered images or (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Anders, I'm sorry to say this but all your comments to me in this thread have been very negative without offering anything positive in return (by way of suggestions for improvements for example). Don made some good points and through debate (...) (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I think that is more workable, since it limits the README to addressing the interpretation of terminology in the license, rather than elaborating/modifying the actual license. Steve (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I do think we should try to get it enshrined in the Constitution too. I really doubt it's ever going to be an issue but it should go some way to assuaging people's worries. Tim (17 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Wouldn't this include modifying/converting...publishing the dat files themselves (a true derivative work)? (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Probably... maybe "LDraw.org does not consider LDraw model files (defined as being MPDs or LDR files whose main purpose is creating a model, ultimate discretion lies with the current LDraw SteerCo) to be derivative works of the Parts Library." (...) (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) of course with the bit about rendered images still left in... sorry. It's late :) Tim (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Yeah, I think the meaning was there, but the language was still a bit unclear. Here's a nice place to look for ideas on how to rework the language. (URL) section on Software is probably the closest match, and I believe this is the key (...) (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) There is one aspect that I am a little worried about and it deals with unofficial files... we can make it clear what a model file is (references to parts only) but then we have the problem that it is considered good practise to include (...) (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I'm not sure about the exact text but id state derived works as "containing the original file or visual representation/rendering of..." This happily excludes models (except where they include unofficial parts), but includes all renders of both (...) (17 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
