Subject:
|
Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:45:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4638 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Don Heyse wrote:
> > In the case of a render the finished product is most definitely a
> > derivative work as without the parts it could not exist. As such it
> > falls most distinctly under the realms of the license.
>
> 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.
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.
> > As for means of transmission you are throwing up pointless and
> > meaningless rubbish.
>
> Again, I disagree. We clearly see the world through different eyes.
> You can call my views rubbish if you want. That's ok, nothing will
> come of it because I *already* agreed to whatever terms the Ldraw Org
> came up with for it's license. I'm just trying to point out what I
> see as a slight flaw in the thinking.
> Have fun,
>
> Don
You haven't explained what relevance it has though. Do you consider ldglite to
be a derivative product of C, the OS and the chips it runs on? If so I'm not
sure how you can license the Windows version under the GPL since it is obviously
derivative of proprietary software.
Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
