POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.object-collection : License reassessment and other matters : Re: License reassessment and other matters Server Time
2 Jun 2023 12:22:18 EDT (-0400)
  Re: License reassessment and other matters  
From: Bald Eagle
Date: 10 May 2021 20:00:00
Message: <web.6099c8558535d42e1f9dae3025979125@news.povray.org>
Cousin Ricky <ric### [at] yahoocom> wrote:

> The LGPL has been updated to version 3.0.  Should we switch to that as a
> collection?  Should we leave it up to the author of the module?

We can, assuming they are still around.   Is there some time period after which
it becomes public domain or at least under the custodianship of the site

> Above all, can someone be granted all the administrative powers that
> Chris Bartlett had before he disappeared?  Decisions need to be made,
> the license being only one.

I think there should always be multiple keyholders and redundancy.  Anything
could happen to any one of us, and given the state of the world, internet access
and communications in any country could become . . . spotty to nonexistant.

> Another example is whether my suggestion to
> avoid all-lowercase identifiers should be formalized.  The community
> thinks it's a good idea, but there seems to be no formal mechanism to
> adopt it.

Perhaps a term for submission to the object collection can be agreement to edit
code to align with compliance standards, changes in SDL syntax, and namespace

> Can there be a method of succession, so the Collection is not again left
> without an administrator?

> If a module is found to be out of compliance for its declared level, how
> should the issue be rectified?  This is a likely situation, as
> compliance requirements have changed since the Collection was inaugurated.

I think that some of those modules are, at this date, and given the
circumstances, the equivalent of abandoned property.  Sometimes there are
mechanic's liens, salvage Rights, for certain things there's usually some legal
requirement that an announcement/notification be published in a (local)
newspaper for a certain period of time - but I have no idea what the global
internet equivalent of that would be.

I'd say just edit them and retain the original.  Post a notice that "If you have
a complaint, then you can request that the edited version be taken down."
I mean, it's an object, written in SDL, for a 25-year-old raytracer.  I would
hope that they'd take some sort of pride that their object is even being used
after the time elapsed since they've coded it.  Not to mention - why submit it
to the object collection unless you wanted to distribute it freely for others to
USE in the first place?

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the topic.
I'm more of a Patrick Henry guy concerning licenses, anyway.

Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.