To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldrawOpen lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 CAD / Development / Organizations / LDraw / 3899
3898  |  3900
Subject: 
Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
Date: 
Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:44:44 GMT
Viewed: 
5375 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.

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 agree.  The way the readme puts it is not in accord with what the license
requires.  Furthermore, because there is a disclaimer in readme that it is not a
license, that whole bit can and should be ignored and only the license followed.
If LDRAW wished to pursue any legal action, which is the point of all this isn't
it... IP rights are only as good to the point where you protect them, a pretty
valid defense might be being mislead by the readme document.



If we're going to have an official license, it should be workable without
non-official riders.

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

Which is kind of why I don't understand the Creative Commons Licensing.  How
much is LDRAW going to enforce these things?  How easily will it be to figure
out if MegaBloks is using the library (as an example)?

I don't see why there isn't a small blurb in the library or preferably in each
part file that says "You may use this for personal use in any manner.  If you
wish to use this work for commercial purposes, [LDRAW] must be conspiculously
acknowledged with your product."  Or something similarly simple.  Either that or
have a click-through license when downloading parts saying much the same thing.



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
 
(...) If you are referring to the non-pursuit section of the readme it is most definitely in accord with the license. As you say a license is only as good as its enforcement but stating a policy of enforcement does not change the license. As an (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
 
(...) 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. And, since the non-commercial disclaimer is not actually part (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR