|
|
 | | In the comics today...
|
| Here's a mostly LEGO related gag... (URL) (23 years ago, 16-Sep-01, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.fun)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| (...) Dennis, I do agree that Lego has been very nice about this; in my first post, I stated that their stance on these matters was one of the things that rekindled my Lego addiction. I admired their action (or lack thereof) as far as Mindstorms was (...) (23 years ago, 12-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| (...) OK, lets not make a mountain out of a molehill here. LEGO very clearly and often stated in that letter that they encourage the creation and use of our third party OS's and such. What they (rightly) wish to protect is the dillution of their (...) (23 years ago, 11-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| FYI, there is now a posting in lugnet.lego.announce that should help to clarify this issue: (URL) set to FUT lugnet.lego.direct because of some rules (that I still don't quite get) about where official messages can be posted and followed-up to, but (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.robotics)
| | | | | Re: LegOS forced to use another name?
|
| Ok, I agree with the *possibility* of the name being a problem, but I am more concerned about the hacks themselves being contested instead. However, LegOS is NOT for commercial purposes, so that should be a factor to consider here. I wouldn't be AS (...) (23 years ago, 10-Sep-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch)
|
|
