 | | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) There is one aspect that I am a little worried about and it deals with unofficial files... we can make it clear what a model file is (references to parts only) but then we have the problem that it is considered good practise to include (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Yeah, I think the meaning was there, but the language was still a bit unclear. Here's a nice place to look for ideas on how to rework the language. (URL) section on Software is probably the closest match, and I believe this is the key (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) of course with the bit about rendered images still left in... sorry. It's late :) Tim (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Probably... maybe "LDraw.org does not consider LDraw model files (defined as being MPDs or LDR files whose main purpose is creating a model, ultimate discretion lies with the current LDraw SteerCo) to be derivative works of the Parts Library." (...) (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Wouldn't this include modifying/converting...publishing the dat files themselves (a true derivative work)? (18 years ago, 7-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I do think we should try to get it enshrined in the Constitution too. I really doubt it's ever going to be an issue but it should go some way to assuaging people's worries. Tim (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I think that is more workable, since it limits the README to addressing the interpretation of terminology in the license, rather than elaborating/modifying the actual license. Steve (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Anders, I'm sorry to say this but all your comments to me in this thread have been very negative without offering anything positive in return (by way of suggestions for improvements for example). Don made some good points and through debate (...) (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) Perhaps people would prefer if we changed that paragraph to something like this in the README Tim ---- LDraw.org is the sole entity responsible for enforcement of the Parts Library copyrights. LDraw.org does not consider rendered images or (...) (18 years ago, 6-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
| |
| | Re: Contributor Agreement License details - updated version
|
|
(...) I wouldn't bother quoting the mathematical world at me. I'm well aware of what defines a mathematical proof or disproof. But... since you seem to wish to be pedantic I said what FURTHER point does it bring. The postulate was already disproved (...) (18 years ago, 5-Feb-07, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
