Subject:
|
Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:35:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4998 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
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, perhaps in connection with a sale of some
sort.
Are you asserting that's a derivative work? Or do you really want to
force people to use other part libraries in order to publish renderings
of their model files. That seems counter-productive to me.
I think the trainheads might agree with me here. Who cares if
somebody's using a model file or a rendering to make some money? The
the more important issue is the ldraw library got us more cool train
designs to choose from.
Personally, I think the license is OK. It's just the odd interpretation
of "derivative works" that bothers me.
Ok, you can kick me now. I deserve it. ;^)
Don
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
