Subject:
|
Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:00:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5329 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 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.
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.
> 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.
If people are willing to go to the effort of making or using an alternate part
library in order to avoid writing "thanks to the LDraw Parts Library" then I am
more than happy to see them do it.
> 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.
I'm less concerned about the rights of people using the library than I am about
the rights of people making it. A simple attribution in a commercial work seems
a very small price to pay for the amount of work that has gone into the Parts
Library for you to use for free.
> Personally, I think the license is OK. It's just the odd interpretation
> of "derivative works" that bothers me.
And I think I agree that model files should be removed from the derivative
works. I do not think renders should be.
> Ok, you can kick me now. I deserve it. ;^)
Well you have managed to convinve me that models probably aren't derivative
works.
> Don
Tim (as with all this thread it represents my personal opinion and in no way a
SteerCo position).
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
