Subject:
|
Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2007 20:17:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5301 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Zachary Best wrote:
> 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 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 example the perl camel trademark is owned by O'Reilly but they have
policies about how it can be used [http://perl.oreilly.com/usage/]
I don't think it would be a valid defense to argue that you were misled by the
Readme. The Readme does state quite clearly that it is not the license. The
misuse by LDraw of enforcement can (and in my opinion should) be offset by
enshrining the policy in its Constitution. That way no SteerCo can override it
without community support.
> >
> > 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.
IIRC each file will refer to the Readme which says that. Including part of the
Readme in every file seems like overkill to me when you can include a single
copy and refer to it.
As I mentioned in my response to Steve changing the license (again) is a huge
job and I for one would not like to see updates delayed even more (and we're
talking at least another year I would think) in order to change something in the
_already agreed upon_ license that can be (in my opinion) adequately dealt with
outside it. I've outlined my thoughts on the costs and benefits of such a
change.
Cost of changing the license:
* Lawyers fees or time spent finding a new suitable license
* Another long delay to Parts Library releases
* A huge amount of work tracking down all part authors again and getting them to
agree to a new license
Benefits of changing the license:
* Enforcement policy can be enshrined in the license rather than the Readme
* The risk of users being targeted by LDraw.org for non-commercial violations of
the CC can be removed
As a user of LDraw I am not prepared to wait another year to see a new part
release. As a part author I am not prepared to submit parts knowing that they
will not be released for a long time because of administrative issues. As an
adminstrator of LDraw I am not prepared to put in the work to change the license
again and I would probably retract my candidacy for the upcoming SteerCo
electrions.
Tim (and once again I have to stress this is all my opinion and does not reflect
the opinions of the SteerCo in any way)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
