Subject:
|
Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:01:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4944 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote:
> 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.
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 burdening would-be model authors with legal questions
works against this.
The way I see it, you should put the requirements on the the library,
to keep it centralized and organized. *Recommend* attribution on
models and renders to point new potential modelers and part authors to
the source of the Ldraw goodness. Don't require attribution on model
files or renders because this serves no useful purpose, as far as I
can tell.
Ok, that said, I promise I won't ever bring this up again. So if I
forget my promise, just kick me and I swear I'll shut up. Really.
Enjoy,
Don
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|