 | | | | | | |
| |
|
I know that the LDraw software remains the intellectual property of
James Jessiman's immediate family.
But what about the parts (primitives, parts) database as a whole? Is it
the property of James Jessiman's immediate family as well? Or is it
free in the GPL sense of the word, meaning that people can copy it,
change and re-distribute it?
Here's an example: To obtain the parts database, one would have to
download the basic LDraw package and the updates. These are .EXE format
files, and can only be installed on an MS-DOS (or Windows) system.
In the future, we may (or may not) see some UNIX flavored tools for
handling LDraw DAT files. Obviously, such programs will be useless
without the parts database. What makes sense to do in this case would
be to install the parts database on an MS-DOS system, extract the parts
database with some kind of archive tool (e.g. tar) and distribute this
along with the UNIX flavoured tools. In other word, one would have to
download the parts database, change and redistribute it. Would this be
legal to do?
I think this is an important question to resolve with respect to the
future of the LDraw community, and would like to see some discussions on
it.
Fredrik
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Fredrik Glöckner" wrote:
>
> Here's an example: To obtain the parts database, one would have to
> download the basic LDraw package and the updates. These are .EXE format
> files, and can only be installed on an MS-DOS (or Windows) system.
You forgot that there's a DOS emulator for Unix and you don't need to
run the .EXE files, they are ARJ self extracting archives so running
"arj x file.exe" will extract the files as well (and arj can be easily
found for Linux systems, it's even included in RedHat).
> In the future, we may (or may not) see some UNIX flavored tools for
> handling LDraw DAT files. Obviously, such programs will be useless
> without the parts database. What makes sense to do in this case would
> be to install the parts database on an MS-DOS system, extract the parts
> database with some kind of archive tool (e.g. tar) and distribute this
> along with the UNIX flavoured tools. In other word, one would have to
> download the parts database, change and redistribute it. Would this be
> legal to do?
I guess that I've said this 100 times but I'll repeat it once again:
When I asked James to let me use his parts, he told me that I could use
them in any way I want as long as I didn't redistribute his files
directly, I should tell people to get the files from his page.
As I used the files in a converted format only, he said it was ok for
me to distribute my modified library. Of course, we are on a totally
different situation now but you don't have to worry about Unix users.
Leonardo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Leonardo Zide <leonardo@centroin.com.br> writes:
> You forgot that there's a DOS emulator for Unix
Yes, but most people would probably prefer not to install DOSEMU or a
similar program unless they have to.
> and you don't need to run the .EXE files, they are ARJ self
> extracting archives so running "arj x file.exe" will extract the
> files as well
Ok, I've never heard this before, and it's not in the FAQ. But now that
I know, this is valuable information.
> (and arj can be easily found for Linux systems, it's even included in
> RedHat).
Yes, unarj seems to be on my system as well. I just tested the
lcad9905.exe archive, and it appears to work well. Great! That's one
less reason to keep DOSEMU installed.
> I guess that I've said this 100 times but I'll repeat it once again:
I've never heard it before and it's not in the FAQ.
> When I asked James to let me use his parts, he told me that I could
> use them in any way I want as long as I didn't redistribute his files
> directly, I should tell people to get the files from his page.
I wouldn't want to argue with that. And I think that the format of the
parts database is probably still the intellectual property of James
Jessiman's immediate family. But what about parts contributed by
others?
> Of course, we are on a totally different situation now
You mean since the parts database has been moved to
<URL:http://www.ldraw.org/> or something else?
> but you don't have to worry about Unix users.
The UNIX users weren't my worry, I just used it as an example.
What worries me is the legal situation of the LDraw parts library. This
is a very valuable database containing hundreds of hours worth of work
contributed not only by James Jessiman, but also by numerous other
people.
Since lots of people have contributed to this database, and probably
will continue to do so, I think it is important to clarify what the
terms of use of the library is. I, for one, do not want to contribute
any more parts until this issue is clear, and I regret not having
brought it up earlier.
I could probably think of many reasons why this issue needs to be
discussed, but it's a little bit late right now. I'll just rant a bit
before I go home:
What if somebody makes a LEGO CAD program, uses all the community
contributed parts in the LDraw database, publishes it and earns a lot of
money. Would that be ok? (Of course, they would have to refrain from
using the LEGO name, to avoid a LEGO Company lawsuit.)
What if someone makes a public domain or GPL or open source CAD program
and distributes it with the LDraw parts, possibly changed in some way?
Can someone use L3P or something similar to make a POV-Ray library of
the LEGO parts from the LDraw library and ship this with POV-Ray? Or
can a major, commercial 3D CAD system sell a similar library to it's
costumers?
What if somebody makes an artwork using renderings of parts from the
LDraw database and publishes this. Is it acceptable?
Can I use rendered parts from the LDraw database in illustrations and
sell them? Use them on my homepage?
Fredrik
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"Fredrik Glöckner" wrote:
>
> > and you don't need to run the .EXE files, they are ARJ self
> > extracting archives so running "arj x file.exe" will extract the
> > files as well
>
> Ok, I've never heard this before, and it's not in the FAQ. But now that
> I know, this is valuable information.
I thought everybody knew that. :)
> > I guess that I've said this 100 times but I'll repeat it once again:
>
> I've never heard it before and it's not in the FAQ.
This is not the kind of thing that would be in the FAQ. I just said
that because I was probably the only person who ever asked permission to
use the LDraw library in another program. Maybe Tore had the same idea
with Simlego ?
> I wouldn't want to argue with that. And I think that the format of the
> parts database is probably still the intellectual property of James
> Jessiman's immediate family. But what about parts contributed by
> others?
I don't know the number of files that James created, in the beginning
people didn't add a header with the author's name like we do now but I
guess the number is something around 600-700. In the worst case, if his
family decide that we can't use the parts anymore, we can convert the
ones we have done to a new format.
If we were not here LDraw would have disappeared a long time ago and
if they decide to do that we'll just switch to another format (most of
us are Lego-CAD addicts and won't be able to survive otherwise :) ). I
heard that Unisys now wants to charge when you use a GIF file in a
homepage, if they are really going to do that people will just use PNG
instead.
> > Of course, we are on a totally different situation now
>
> You mean since the parts database has been moved to
> <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/> or something else?
I mean that James is not around anymore.
> > but you don't have to worry about Unix users.
>
> The UNIX users weren't my worry, I just used it as an example.
To put it better: "you don't need to worry about uncompressing the
.exe files" :)
> What worries me is the legal situation of the LDraw parts library. This
> is a very valuable database containing hundreds of hours worth of work
> contributed not only by James Jessiman, but also by numerous other
> people.
I'm not a lawyer but I believe that when we create a part, we don't
loose the rights of that part just because it was saved using the LDraw
format. You could compare that to something like "when I save a document
using MS Word, I still have the rights to the doc (and not MS)". My
father is a lawyer, maybe I could ask him a few questions.
> What if someone makes a public domain or GPL or open source CAD program
> and distributes it with the LDraw parts, possibly changed in some way?
Isn't that the case of LDLite ? Besides, I've been doing that with
LeoCAD for a long time (but I have permission).
> Can someone use L3P or something similar to make a POV-Ray library of
> the LEGO parts from the LDraw library and ship this with POV-Ray? Or
> can a major, commercial 3D CAD system sell a similar library to it's
> costumers?
If that happens and we can prove that we did the parts then we (the
part authors and James family) can go to court and ask for royalties
because they stole the work done by someone else.
> What if somebody makes an artwork using renderings of parts from the
> LDraw database and publishes this. Is it acceptable?
>
> Can I use rendered parts from the LDraw database in illustrations and
> sell them? Use them on my homepage?
James was never against allowing us to use drawings in homepages. In
my opinion, we're not doing any profit here so we don't need to worry
about this, James was a very nice person and I believe that reflects the
way his parents are. As always, YMMV.
Leonardo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Leonardo Zide <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message
news:3831F66E.B12CD034@centroin.com.br...
> "Fredrik Glöckner" wrote:
> >
> > What if somebody makes an artwork using renderings of parts from the
> > LDraw database and publishes this. Is it acceptable?
> >
> > Can I use rendered parts from the LDraw database in illustrations and
> > sell them? Use them on my homepage?
>
> James was never against allowing us to use drawings in homepages. In
> my opinion, we're not doing any profit here so we don't need to worry
> about this, James was a very nice person and I believe that reflects the
> way his parents are. As always, YMMV.
A number of people _are_ using parts from the LDraw database to help make a
profit. Parts auctions, and even a supplier of "homebrew" sensors are using
renderings to describe or advertise their product. IMHO, this is a perfectly
acceptable use for LDraw renderings--though I must say I did a double-take
when I saw the RCX I modeled being used.
I'm not a lawyer, but I seem to recall that if you add significant "value"
using data, and distribute your own creation, it is not the same as
distributing the data itself. So selling a rendering of an LDraw part is not
the same as selling the part.
-John Van
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, John VanZwieten writes:
>
> Leonardo Zide <leonardo@centroin.com.br> wrote in message
> news:3831F66E.B12CD034@centroin.com.br...
> > "Fredrik Glöckner" wrote:
> > James was never against allowing us to use drawings in homepages. In
> > my opinion, we're not doing any profit here so we don't need to worry
> > about this, James was a very nice person and I believe that reflects the
> > way his parents are. As always, YMMV.
>
> -John Van
I have mailed with Jammes Jessiman about selling the parts, and program he
made.
This was his answer:
You may sell it as long as you keep the parts and program together and proper.
He ment I could distribute it as if I was the internet
I could earn a (small)fee for the work (put it on floppy or CD)
greetings martyn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"martyn Boogaarts" <mjr.boogaarts@usa.net> writes:
> I have mailed with Jammes Jessiman about selling the parts, and
> program he made. This was his answer:
>
> You may sell it as long as you keep the parts and program together
> and proper.
>
> He ment I could distribute it as if I was the internet
> I could earn a (small)fee for the work (put it on floppy or CD)
I'm afraid I don't fully understand what you mean here. On the second
last line, are you saying that you could distribute it on the internet,
provided that you keep the program and the parts together and made sure
that it was a fully working distribution?
Somehow, this seems to contradict what Leonardo Zide said, as he was
allowed to distribute the parts library _without_ distributing the
software as well.
Fredrik
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "martyn Boogaarts" <mjr.boogaarts@usa.net> writes:
>
> > I have mailed with Jammes Jessiman about selling the parts, and
> > program he made. This was his answer:
> >
> > You may sell it as long as you keep the parts and program together
> > and proper.
> >
> > He ment I could distribute it as if I was the internet
> > I could earn a (small)fee for the work (put it on floppy or CD)
>
> I'm afraid I don't fully understand what you mean here. On the second
> last line, are you saying that you could distribute it on the internet,
> provided that you keep the program and the parts together and made sure
> that it was a fully working distribution?
>
> Somehow, this seems to contradict what Leonardo Zide said, as he was
> allowed to distribute the parts library _without_ distributing the
> software as well.
YES, I know that is why I posted it !
This conversation with Jammes was in the early beginning of his Ldraw(1995).
I think Jammes wanted _his_ parts to be(come) a standard and because Leonardo
Zide made a windows based programm he wanted to embrasse that to.
His Idea seems to work !
But He didn't want to get _his_ parts missused !
So if I distrubated it 'off the NET', he wanted onley a complete package
(programm + parts) (his copyright!!)
greetings martyn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
martyn Boogaarts wrote:
>
> > Somehow, this seems to contradict what Leonardo Zide said, as he was
> > allowed to distribute the parts library _without_ distributing the
> > software as well.
Sorry, I missed your post and now I'm replying to the reply. :)
I was allowed to distribute the parts without the software only
because I was distributing them in a *modified* format. James didn't
want me to distribute the original .DAT files, he told me that I should
point the users to his page instead, but after I explained what I was
doing he only asked for a link to his pages.
Leonardo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide writes:
> martyn Boogaarts wrote:
> >
> > > Somehow, this seems to contradict what Leonardo Zide said, as he was
> > > allowed to distribute the parts library _without_ distributing the
> > > software as well.
>
> Sorry, I missed your post and now I'm replying to the reply. :)
>
> I was allowed to distribute the parts without the software only
> because I was distributing them in a *modified* format. James didn't
> want me to distribute the original .DAT files, he told me that I should
> point the users to his page instead, but after I explained what I was
> doing he only asked for a link to his pages.
>
> Leonardo
like I said Jammes wanted a standard : not a comercial product !
greetings martyn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> like I said: " James wanted a standard : not a comercial product !"
Jammes should be JAMES JESSIMAN
major typo error :(
>
> greetings martyn
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Leonardo Zide <leonardo@centroin.com.br> writes:
> "Fredrik Glöckner" wrote:
> > > I guess that I've said this 100 times but I'll repeat it once again:
> >
> > I've never heard it before and it's not in the FAQ.
>
> This is not the kind of thing that would be in the FAQ.
If you've had to say it a hundred times already, I think it _should_ be
in the FAQ. That's what FAQs are for, isn't it? Frequently answered
questions.
> > What if someone makes a public domain or GPL or open source CAD program
> > and distributes it with the LDraw parts, possibly changed in some way?
>
> Isn't that the case of LDLite ?
Nah, I wouldn't say so. The parts database isn't distributed with
LDLITE. Sure, LDLITE uses James Jessiman's LDraw format, but no parts
are distributed with it.
> Besides, I've been doing that with LeoCAD for a long time (but I have
> permission).
Well, we can't use James Jessiman's permission as a rule for who can
distribute the parts, as he isn't around anymore.
Fredrik
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Fredrik Glöckner skrev i meddelandet ...
> I know that the LDraw software remains the intellectual property of
> James Jessiman's immediate family.
>
> But what about the parts (primitives, parts) database as a whole? Is it
> the property of James Jessiman's immediate family as well? Or is it
> free in the GPL sense of the word, meaning that people can copy it,
> change and re-distribute it?
This question has been on my mind too a bit, as I have thought of the
possibility to 'import' LDRAW parts to BlockCAD (with a lot of manual
massaging of course, but still using the work done on the original parts).
I haven't come to the coding stage yet, so it's not a pressing question for
me, but as you mentioned it...
Is it possible to use the LDRAW parts in such a way, or should I forget it?
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery.htm
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
[ Just for the record: IANAL ]
Fredrik:
> I know that the LDraw software remains the intellectual property of
> James Jessiman's immediate family.
>
> But what about the parts (primitives, parts) database as a whole? Is it
> the property of James Jessiman's immediate family as well? Or is it
> free in the GPL sense of the word, meaning that people can copy it,
> change and re-distribute it?
The _collection_ of LDraw files is strictly speaking owned
collectively by all of us who in some way have contributed
to the collection.
The _individual_ LDraw files are owned by whoever worked on
them.
It would be nice if we could agree on a license, even though
the current "we do what we feel is right" system still
works.
Does anyone have a clear idea about how GPL, LPGP, OSL and
OPL would apply to the LDraw parts library, translations of
the parts library, and programs using the original or
translated versions of the LDraw parts libaray?
[ redistributing the parts library ]
> Would this be legal to do?
Only if you can get everyone who have worked on the parts
library to agree to it.
> I think this is an important question to resolve with respect to the
> future of the LDraw community, and would like to see some discussions on
> it.
Yes.
I would like to see that all the current contributers agreed
on a license for the library. We could say that all future
contributions also have to be covered by that license to be
accepted in the library.
I don't know which license we should choose.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner wrote:
> I know that the LDraw software remains the intellectual property of
> James Jessiman's immediate family.
>
> But what about the parts (primitives, parts) database as a whole? Is it
> the property of James Jessiman's immediate family as well? Or is it
> free in the GPL sense of the word, meaning that people can copy it,
> change and re-distribute it?
The files James published are copyrighted, and his family has control on the
copyright. They have given 'us', the L-CAD group, permission to continue to
publish and maintain his work.
The additional parts, as Jacob said, are copyrighted by their authors, and
collectively 'owned' by the L-CAD group. If the L-CAD group were to fall apart,
then the authors would need to exert their individual rights.
Terry Keller is working on writing a clear license file for the original
ldraw.exe package. I believe he is leaning toward retaining copyright for all
program files, and GPL'ing the parts library.
IMO, the L-CAD parts should also be GPL'ed. And a clear license file should be
written and included with each update. And information about this should be
made available on ldraw.org, especially for potential part-authors.
It should also be made clear that when files from the original library are
updated and published in an L-CAD release, the copyright remains with the
Jessimans.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> The additional parts, as Jacob said, are copyrighted by their
> authors, and collectively 'owned' by the L-CAD group. If the L-CAD
> group were to fall apart, then the authors would need to exert their
> individual rights.
I agree with this statement, but I was hoping that we could have this
stated in a more formal way somewhere. I find this very important as
people spend hundreds of hours of work on the parts which are donated to
the LDraw community.
> Terry Keller is working on writing a clear license file for the
> original ldraw.exe package. I believe he is leaning toward retaining
> copyright for all program files, and GPL'ing the parts library.
I never seem to cease being impressed by the amount of time and work
some people spend on LDraw related issues, and especially by Terry
Keller. His work has been of very high importance to our community. I
wish the two of you good luck on handling the L-CAD releases and hope it
doesn't take too much time from you.
> IMO, the L-CAD parts should also be GPL'ed. And a clear license file
> should be written and included with each update. And information
> about this should be made available on ldraw.org, especially for
> potential part-authors.
I think I lean towards GPL for the parts as well, but I'm afraid I'm
don't really see what kind of consequences different choices could
have. That's why I'd like to see a discussion on this.
Fredrik
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I'm not so keen on seeing the parts GPLed as I don't want to be in the
business of handling requests for the parts library if I give someone
some instructions that were made using them. Be very careful before you
GPL something, it conveys specific legal rights.
I think a GPL "like" license is good but it needs to subtract a few
clauses.
Steve Bliss wrote:
> Terry Keller is working on writing a clear license file for the original
> ldraw.exe package. I believe he is leaning toward retaining copyright for all
> program files, and GPL'ing the parts library.
>
> IMO, the L-CAD parts should also be GPL'ed. And a clear license file should be
> written and included with each update. And information about this should be
> made available on ldraw.org, especially for potential part-authors.
>
> It should also be made clear that when files from the original library are
> updated and published in an L-CAD release, the copyright remains with the
> Jessimans.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I think a GPL "like" license is good but it needs to subtract a few
> clauses.
The clause in the GPL refers to "source code" i.e. something which can be compiled
into an executable program.
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
* Jonathan Wilson (wilsonj@xoommail.com) [991118 10:09]:
> > I think a GPL "like" license is good but it needs to subtract a few
> > clauses.
>
> The clause in the GPL refers to "source code" i.e. something which can be compiled
> into an executable program.
GPL refers to source code and binaries, and the fact that shipping a
binary only won't let you fix problems your self (RMS has a story
about a #$*#$& printer that, if they had the driver source, they
could have gotten it working with their equipment. This was 20
years or so, when printers cost more than a car).
Here is what the book "Debugging with GDB", which is by RMS and
Cygnus Solutions, has on it's copyrights page:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are
preserved on all copies.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of
this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided also
that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the
terms of a permission notice identical to this one.
Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this
manual into another language, under the above conditions for
modified versions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(we'd want to change the word "manual" to "interlocking block model"
or something.)
Is this reasonably close to the intent we would like? IANAL, but I
don't think we need all the extra verbage to explain what "source"
is, etc., since it isn't source (exactly). And when it is compiled
(rendered) we don't want to force each picture to include the pieces
used.
Or do we? Hmm.... If you use a piece to build a model, and you
distribute a movie/image (compiled result), do we want to force the
inclusion of the pieces? Would the GPL bleed over to the model .dat
file?
Just some thoughts.
Ciao!
--
Eschew Obfuscation.
The Doctor What: Second Baseman http://docwhat.gerf.org/
docwhat@gerf.org (finger docwhat@gerf.org for PGP key)
KF6VNC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
The Doctor What <docwhat@gerf.org> writes:
[ snipped the Gnu Manual License ]
> Is this reasonably close to the intent we would like?
This is probably quite similar to the X11 License I posted in my
previous post, and I think something like that would suffice for the
parts library.
Fredrik
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jonathan Wilson:
> Larry(?) wrote:
>
> > I think a GPL "like" license is good but it needs to subtract a few
> > clauses.
>
> The clause in the GPL refers to "source code" i.e. something
> which can be compiled into an executable program.
In our case the source code is files in LDraw format, and
the "executable programs" are derivations such as POV-Ray
files, raytraces, and LDraw output in general.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> I'm not so keen on seeing the parts GPLed as I don't want to be in the
> business of handling requests for the parts library if I give someone
> some instructions that were made using them. Be very careful before you
> GPL something, it conveys specific legal rights.
>
> I think a GPL "like" license is good but it needs to subtract a few
> clauses.
Good point. I haven't read the GPL lately, and I have a bad memory for license
details.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner wrote:
> I think this is an important question to resolve with respect to the
> future of the LDraw community, and would like to see some discussions on
> it.
So do we want to clearly delineate what people can, and cannot, do with the
parts library? Or is it better to leave it fuzzy?
If people have to ask permission before doing certain actions (such as
translating and/or redistributing), who do they ask? Who can give permission?
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> So do we want to clearly delineate what people can, and cannot, do with the
> parts library? Or is it better to leave it fuzzy?
It's the fuzziness I dislike. I would like to see some clear legal
terms for the use of the parts.
About the "community created" parts library, not the ones made by James
Jessiman, I agree with Larry Pieniazek that the GPL is a bit too
involved. I don't think we need that. Actually, I would be happy to
simply put it in the public domain.
If we want something more involved than that, how about a simple licence
like the one from X11? (Included below my signature.)
IANAL, but I think that if we take the position that an LDraw'n part is
completely determined by the shape of the respective brick, i.e., that
there is no creative process going on while modeling a LEGO brick, then
the parts library is _not_ copyrightable, at least it isn't in the US.
Whether or not there is a creative process going on while modeling a
part is probably hard to say. What do you think?
> If people have to ask permission before doing certain actions (such
> as translating and/or redistributing), who do they ask? Who can give
> permission?
If we are talking about the orignal parts library, as made by James
Jessiman, only the Jessimans can give permission, I guess.
Fredrik
__
X11 License
Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 X Consortium
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
X CONSORTIUM BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN
AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall not be
used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings
in this Software without prior written authorization from the X Consortium.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Fredrik Glöckner <fredrik.glockner@bio.uio.no> wrote in message
news:m3u2mipne0.fsf@sade.uio.no...
>
> IANAL, but I think that if we take the position that an LDraw'n part is
> completely determined by the shape of the respective brick, i.e., that
> there is no creative process going on while modeling a LEGO brick, then
> the parts library is _not_ copyrightable, at least it isn't in the US.
>
> Whether or not there is a creative process going on while modeling a
> part is probably hard to say. What do you think?
There absolutely is a creative process going on when modeling a part. If you
gave 10 people the challenge of modeling the TIE cockpit piece, I guarantee
you would get 10 different .dat files. In any complex part, you must make
artistic judgement about where to skip details, where and how to use
primitives, where exactly two faces intersect, etc. Consider the wide variety
of CAD files derived from a single brick: Ldraw, Blockcad, Leocad, LEGO
Creator, L3GO.
-John Van
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"John VanZwieten" <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> writes:
> There absolutely is a creative process going on when modeling a part.
> If you gave 10 people the challenge of modeling the TIE cockpit
> piece, I guarantee you would get 10 different .dat files. In any
> complex part, you must make artistic judgement about where to skip
> details, where and how to use primitives, where exactly two faces
> intersect, etc.
I'll agree with you. There is definitively a creative process going on
when modeling brick, possibly except for the very simplest ones.
> Consider the wide variety of CAD files derived from a single brick:
> Ldraw, Blockcad, Leocad, LEGO Creator, L3GO.
Yes, but these differences reflect the format, not the author, don't
they?
Fredrik
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Steve:
> So do we want to clearly delineate what people can, and cannot, do with the
> parts library? Or is it better to leave it fuzzy?
It is preferable that it is clear what can and can not be
done with the library. Otherwise people will come and ask us
"all the time".
> If people have to ask permission before doing certain actions (such as
> translating and/or redistributing), who do they ask? Who can give
> permission?
People shouldn't have to ask for permission to do anything
we can agree it is reasonable to let them do.
The answer to questions we can't agree about will have to be
no (sort of), so that shouldn't cause too many difficulties.
Play well,
Jacob
------------------------------------------------
-- E-mail: sparre@cats.nbi.dk --
-- Web...: <URL:http://www.ldraw.org/FAQ/> --
------------------------------------------------
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
* Jacob Sparre Andersen (sparre@sys-323.risoe.dk) [991119 10:29]:
> Steve:
>
> > So do we want to clearly delineate what people can, and cannot, do with the
> > parts library? Or is it better to leave it fuzzy?
>
> It is preferable that it is clear what can and can not be
> done with the library. Otherwise people will come and ask us
> "all the time".
>
> > If people have to ask permission before doing certain actions (such as
> > translating and/or redistributing), who do they ask? Who can give
> > permission?
>
> People shouldn't have to ask for permission to do anything
> we can agree it is reasonable to let them do.
Even worse; Giving a part to the part-library gives up certain
rights to the part. If it isn't clear what rights exist, then
people may not make parts for the part-library.
I say we pick a copyright notice that is *very clear* about what can
and cannot be done. I think it should be a fairly liberal copyright
notice, so as to encourage use (as we wish to spread our hobby) and
to encourage additions.
> The answer to questions we can't agree about will have to be
> no (sort of), so that shouldn't cause too many difficulties.
I don't think the copyright notice should be ambiguous at all. It
should be very clear.
When we have gotten the copyright notice done, we should have
everyone we can find who has contributed, agree to it. If someone
doesn't agree, or we can't find them, then those pieces should be
put off to the side someplace.
Ciao!
--
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
-- Dave Olson
The Doctor What: Un-Humble http://docwhat.gerf.org/
docwhat@gerf.org (finger docwhat@gerf.org for PGP key)
KF6VNC
| | | | | | |
