ldraw.org parts library (again)
For those who remember my old questions, no, it has not been resolved.
Ldraw.org coordinates and puts together a parts library (of lego style
pieces) which they distribute from their site. The library is a self
extracting exe which contains individual parts files in some 3d format
or another (no, I really don't know what format). These pieces are
used by various programs to put together into lego models (leocad in my
case http://www.leocad.org).
There are several issues that I don't understand.
1) Is this parts library copyrightable? It is simply descriptions of
physical things that anyone can see and measure; it is discovered
data. I've attached an email about this from the mailing lists at
ldraw.
2) Let's say it is copyrightable and has some license or other on it.
I make a model (using the parts library) and publish it in 3d
format. What is the relationship between my model and the original
library? Is it considered a derivative work? If enough 3d,
finished models were gathered up, one could theoretically extract
the pieces and recreate the original parts library, circumventing
any license on the original library.
3) I've attached a few other emails that I hope convey an idea of what
ldraw people want in a license. Are there any examples similar to
this one? Does anyone have any suggestions on a possible
resolution?
Thanks.
--
Pat Mahoney <patmahoney@gmx.net>
If puns were deli meat, this would be the wurst.
In lugnet.cad.dev, Fredrik Glöckner wrote:
>"Pat Mahoney" <patmahoney@gmx.net> writes:
>
>> It could probably be argued that since the parts represent physical
>> things, they [the data in the library] are just "discovered"
>> measurements of empirical data. They are not "created" and therefore
>> not copyrightable.
>
>This is true, however the creation of parts is not merely a mechanical
>process -- the author does actually go through a creative process to
>model a part. This is because the author has to choose which details
>to model and which primitives to use.
This is a good point, and I agree with it. I don't know if it has anything
to do with copyright or not.
>So I would say that most LDrawn parts, except the most basic ones, are
>indeed copyrightable.
As I understand it (and IANAL), 'copyright' applies to the expression of
ideas. So you can hold copyright on a file, which prevents others from
duplicating that file (with various allowances and restrictions). But they
are free to use the ideas expressed in that file.
When it comes down to it, the LEGO Company holds the IP rights to all these
measurements and patterns and ideas. We part authors have *no* right to
any of these numbers. We can and do have copyright on their expression, in
the part files we create.
Steve
I have some issues, mostly minor, one major.
In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide writes:
> Hi,
>
> After some more dicussion, I have come to the following proposal for
>the license. It's much simpler than Steve's first license but I think it
>covers all important points.
>
> I have also copied some parts of the GPL text because I think they are
>useful.
>
>==============================================================
>
>Section I: Definitions
>
>"Owner" is the Software's copyright owner.
Which is who? This needs to be addressed somewhere.
>
>"Unaltered Version" is an exact duplicate of the Library as provided by
>the
>Owner. If you add to, delete, or change any files in the Software
>package,
>or if you add files to the Software, it is no longer an Unaltered
>Version.
>Straight conversions from the original ASCII format to a binary format
>is
>not considered an "Altered Version", provided that the contents of the
>library
>is not modified in any way.
>
>"Altered Version" is a copy of the Library that has been modified by
>someone
>other than the Owner.
>
>LCAD: LEGO-style CAD. In reference to the system of construction toys
>produced by The LEGO Company.
Minor issue:
strike ".", add "and the various programs and systems of datamodels that allow
Computer Aided Design (creation) of representations and renderings thereof."
or something to that effect, or else the definition is incomplete. Some
reference to the Library being based on LDraw standards may be helpful.
>Library: the set of DAT files, distributed by ldraw.org, and labeled as
>the 'LCAD Parts Library'.
Minor point:
What is a DAT file? Can the library contain anything other than DAT files?
Should you claim that anything that is originated by ldraw.org is covered?
what is the difference between originated by and distributed by? These points
were covered in other, more verbose but more precise, versions of the proposed
license.
>Redistribute: Making the Library available from a source other than the
>www.ldraw.org internet website.
>
>
>Section II: Requirements
>
>1. The origin of this library must not be misrepresented; you must not
> claim that you wrote the original library. If you use this library
> in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation is
> required along with a link to http://www.ldraw.org.
>
>2. This notice may not be removed or altered from any library
> distribution.
>
>3. Altered library files must be plainly marked as such, and must
> not be misrepresented as being part of the original library.
> If an original file is altered then its header must clearly indicate
>that
> it was modified. Changes must also be listed in a separate text file
> included in the distribution package.
>
>4. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
>or
> in part contains or is derived from the Library or any part thereof,
>to
> be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the
>terms
> of this License.
MAJOR point:
I cannot accept this as written. This is the GPL problem that GNU solves with
the LGPL, I think.
If I do a "work" that contains or is derived from the Library it is licensed
(and therefore freely redistributable) at no charge. That's fine for parts but
since a design or model or rendering or set of instructions is a "work"
(unless you define differently) which contains parts of the library (by
reference) that means that I cannot assert copyright on instructions that I
produce or renderings that I make, or if I can, I cannot prevent
redistribution for free of my copyrighted original work.
Totally unacceptable.
Look at how LGPL gets around this problem to allow incorporation of "free"
work into "for pay" products. Or consider being more explicit to
redefine "work" more tightly to avoid the problem. Saying that it's obvious
what is meant won't cut it for me, this is a large sticking point. Very large.
GNU C++ licensing does not enjoin authors from charging for programs written
with it. And the licensing verbiage makes that clear. This doesn't.
I will assume that this is an oversight on your part, but if it is actually
your intent that I be enjoined from charging for instructions (that come with
my kits, that is, from doing what I do *here*:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=449243188) then we have
a much bigger, much much bigger, problem.
And we need to thrash it out now.
>5. If a new file is distributed with the library then it must be
>installed in a different
> directory then the original library or distributed in a separate
>archive.
>
>// BEGIN COPY OF GPL
>
>6. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Library
>except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise
>to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Library is void, and will
>automatically terminate your rights under this License.
>However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
>this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
>parties remain in full compliance.
>
>7. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
>signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
>distribute the Library or its derivative works. These actions are
>prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
>modifying or distributing the Library (or any work based on the
>Library), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all
>its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the
>Program or works based on it.
>
>8. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
>Library), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
>original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Library subject to
>these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions
>on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not
>responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
>
>9. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
>infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
>conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
>otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
>excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute
>so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and
>any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not
>distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would
>not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who
>receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you
>could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from
>distribution of the Program.
>
>If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
>any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
>apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
>circumstances.
>
>It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
>patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
>such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
>integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented
>by public license practices. Many people have made generous
>contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that
>system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to
>the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute
>software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that
>choice.
>
>This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be
>a consequence of the rest of this License.
>
>10. If the distribution and/or use of the Library is restricted in
>certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
>original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may
>add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those
>countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries
>not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the
>limitation as if written in the body of this License.
>
>11. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Library into other free
>programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the
>author to ask for permission.
>
>// END OF GPL COPY
>
>Section III: Disclaimer
>
>The Library is provided "as is" and without any express or implied
>warranties, including, without limitation, the implied warranties of
>merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Owner is not
>liable for any damages or other costs incurred by you by using the
>Library.
>
>Leonardo
++Lar
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this -- I've been too busy to
really dig into it.
Overall, I think this is a decent *redistribution* license. It does not
address:
1. The agreement(s) between the contributors and ldraw.org.
2. The fact that ldraw.org does not hold copyright to the components of the
library, but only the copyright to the complete library. This is not a key
issue for a redistribution license, I think.
3. The user license.
Also, I agree with Larry's comments; I'll try to avoid reiterating them.
In lugnet.cad.dev, Leonardo Zide wrote:
>==============================================================
>
>Section I: Definitions
>
>"Owner" is the Software's copyright owner.
c /Software/Library/ here and everywhere.
>"Unaltered Version" is an exact duplicate of the Library as provided by
>the Owner. If you add to, delete, or change any files in the Software
>package, or if you add files to the Software, it is no longer an Unaltered
>Version.
Define "You". May be better to use a different term, and define that term.
Add "reorganize directory structure" in there somewhere -- the structure is
important.
>Straight conversions from the original ASCII format to a binary format
>is not considered an "Altered Version", provided that the contents of the
>library is not modified in any way.
I disagree with this. If downline users cannot access the files as
straight text, then there has been a fundamental change in the library.
The information has not changed, but the accessability has.
Also, add that changing the archive-method of the library is OK.
>Library: the set of DAT files, distributed by ldraw.org, and labeled as
>the 'LCAD Parts Library'.
I want to publish (as a separate document) a definition of an "LDraw Parts
library" or "LDraw-compatible Library", so we can specify that the LCAD
Library meets that definition.
>Redistribute: Making the Library available from a source other than the
>www.ldraw.org internet website.
Nope. Ldraw.org might decide to make the library available from somewhere
else. "Redistribute" is not a matter of "where", but "who".
>Section II: Requirements
>
>1. The origin of this library must not be misrepresented; you must not
> claim that you wrote the original library. If you use this library
> in a product, an acknowledgment in the product documentation is
> required along with a link to http://www.ldraw.org.
c /an acknowledgment/a prominent acknowledgment/
I don't think 'prominent' is an actionable term, but I don't want the
information buried somewhere in the back pages.
>4. You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole
>or in part contains or is derived from the Library or any part thereof,
>to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the
>terms of this License.
This is a big bad, like Larry said. Unless this clause is removed, I
cannot agree to this license.
>5. If a new file is distributed with the library then it must be
>installed in a different
> directory then the original library or distributed in a separate
>archive.
Slight nit-picking on phrasing:
5. New files, which are redistributed with the library, must be installed
in a directory not included in the original library, or must be distributed
in a separate archive.
[snip remainder]
Steve
Reply to: