Subject:
|
Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:17:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5120 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Don Heyse wrote:
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Which is precisely why we are stating we will not pursue any claims unless it is
for commercial work. It would be unfair to the part authors if someone (eg. TLG
or Megablocks) where to use the LDraw parts library for rendering commercial
products without giving attribution.
> 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.
As the Readme states it would only be a practical requirement on commercial use.
Changing the license is not easy. LDraw.org does not have any lawyers
volunteering their services to create a special license nor does it have funds
to pay for one. Using a free license seems to be the best solution. A problem
was pointed out and the SteerCo have attempted to deal with it in a way that
legally protects the work of all Part Authors whilst also adding no extra burden
to regular users.
> 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.
No please do. It is useful to discuss these issues and in no way would I say
that the current version is infallible. I am tempted to bring up the removal of
the potentially legally dubious inclusion of model files as a derivative work
from the current Readme to the SteerCo list.
> Enjoy,
>
> Don
Tim
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
