 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) 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. (...) If people are willing to go to the effort of making or using an alternate part library in order to (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) 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, (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) 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. (...) Which is precisely why we are stating we will (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) 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. But anyhow, look, I like Ldraw files and renders. I want to see more of them. And (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) 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. (...) You haven't (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) 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. (...) Again, I disagree. We clearly (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
