| |
Dave Baum wrote:
> I'm by no means a legal expert, and perhaps I'm being a bit paranoid, but
> I don't believe its quite that simple.
>
> First, I wouldn't trust anything I wrote to actually hold up in a court of
> law, so I'd need to hire an attorney to write it. One way around this may
> be to use something already in existence (such as the GPL) to license the
> models (1).
>
> Second (and more important), enforcing the agreement would be difficult.
> The burden would be on me to sue anyone who infringed on this. Let's say
> a book comes out next year and the 3D stuff looks suspciously like mine.
> Not exact - just suspiciously close. How can I tell if the other
> publisher just took my models and tweaked them a bit? They would be under
> no obligation to show me their 3D data files - not without a court order.
> Of course everyone is trying to model the same physical object (lego
> bricks), thus it would be expected that independently developed 3D models
> would look similar. Would I be willing to start a suit (and all of the
> associated cost and effort) just on the chance that the other publisher
> *may* have infringed?
>
> In the end its a lot more cost effective to keep the models private. That
> way I *know* nobody is using them for commerical purposes.
>
> Of course I still would like to find a way to release the models for
> non-commercial use, but at this point I believe that if I release them in
> such a way I'm also opening the door for commercial use as well since I
> may not be willing to go through the risk/expense of enforcing a license.
> Bottom line is that I don't have a solution that I'm comfortable with yet.
>
> If any attorneys out there have some ideas or opinions on this, I'd love
> to hear them. As I stated above, I'm not a legal expert by any means.
>
> Dave Baum
>
> (1) One thing I'm very unclear about for the GPL is if it in any way
> reduces my rights as the original copyright holder. For example, if I
> release some code under GPL, that precludes anybody from ever
> incorporating it into a non-GPL work. But that is just the *license*
> under which others get the source. Can I still (as the copyright holder)
> release a derived work under a non-GPL agreement? I believe this just
> amounts to me licensing the same work under two different licenses - which
> happens all the time. But this seems contrary to the intention of GPL.
> Am I missing something?
>
> In article <386F42F0.F35E619@xoommail.com>, Jonathan Wilson
> <wilsonj@xoommail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > We haven't decided yet. I'd like to make them available for other
> > > hobbyists, but I'm not sure I want to give them away to my competitors if
> > > I decide to write another book. We really haven't dug into the legality
> > > (or enforcibility) of making them available for "non-commercial" use.
> >
> > You just put something to that effect on the license and if anyone violates the
> > liscence then you just sue them.
>
> --
> reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
I believe you can still release it under a different liscence. The GPL would be
perfect for the job.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Roboarm from Dave Baum's super book
|
| I'm by no means a legal expert, and perhaps I'm being a bit paranoid, but I don't believe its quite that simple. First, I wouldn't trust anything I wrote to actually hold up in a court of law, so I'd need to hire an attorney to write it. One way (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.technic, lugnet.robotics)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Robotics
|
|
|
|
|
|
