Subject:
|
Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:07:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5192 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > Which is precisely why we are stating we will not pursue any claims unless it is
> > for commercial work.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't work for me. The license describes how someone must behave;
> lack of prosecution for non-compliance doesn't erase the ethical imperative to
> follow the agreement.
I'm not sure I agree with the ethical imperative argument. There are plenty of
old laws on statute books that no-one follows or expects to follow but are still
there. Either way, ethical decisions are made on an individual basis (including
the decision to break a license) so I'm not prepared to worry about them.
> And, since the non-commercial disclaimer is not actually part of the license,
> what is to stop ldraw.org from changing its attitude and starting to prosecute
> non-commercial 'abuse' of the license?
I have already suggested that the non-pursuit should be written into the
constitution. That way you would need a vote to change it.
> If we're going to have an official license, it should be workable without
> non-official riders.
It is easy to say this but the practicalities of it are extremely difficult.
Part authors have already agreed to use the CC license. To change it would
require tracking down each and every one of them in order to ask their
permission. That is assuming that a suitable alternative can be found or made.
It is a sub-optimal solution at present but it has already been more than a year
since the last parts update and until this is resolved there cannot be another
one. Would you prefer to see the Parts Library die or stagnate in its entirety
over the issue?
> > 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.
>
> Considering that the work of part authors is based entirely on designs which
> belong to TLG, I doubt we (legally) have much of a leg to stand on, preventing
> others from using the LDraw files.
>
> Steve
That would be an issue for lawyers in the unlikely event it ever came down to
it. I wouldn't like to speculate either way. In the event of Megablocks using
the library (and they could use some of it) the situation would be different.
Tim
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
57 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
