Generatable primitives

[Orion Pobursky]

Currently primitives that are derived from PrimGen (or similar sources) are attributed to the author that submits them. I'd like to change it so that LDraw.org "owns" them. I have some ideas that I'll share down thread but I'd like to hear other user's ideas.

[Travis Cobbs]

Currently primitives that are derived from PrimGen (or similar sources) are attributed to the author that submits them. I'd like to change it so that LDraw.org "owns" them. I have some ideas that I'll share down thread but I'd like to hear other user's ideas.

I generated 48/1-8sphe.dat—as well as the current geometry in 1-8sphe.dat—using LDView's primitive substitution algorithm, and I don't mind them being "owned" by LDraw.org. I don't mind them being left alone either, and don't really have an opinion one way or another about your desired to have LDraw.org "own" these in general.

[Vincent Messenet]

Currently primitives that are derived from PrimGen (or similar sources) are attributed to the author that submits them. I'd like to change it so that LDraw.org "owns" them. I have some ideas that I'll share down thread but I'd like to hear other user's ideas.

I have created some prims using PrimGen and I don't mind at all not being the owner as I did not produce a lot except saving and uploading the file.

[Takeshi Takahashi]

I also agree with transferring the ownership of generated primitives I've submitted, as no "my original" work is included in them.

[Orion Pobursky]

I thought I already replied but apparently not...

As always, most of these types of posts are "shower thoughts" intended to spark conversation and not fully formed policy ready to be implemented.

Here's my thought process:
- Primitives are essential and inseparable from the library.
- The license that is used by them need to be as permissive as possible
- Machine generated code is not copyrightable
- Therefore, I'm not sure the CC licenses apply to machine generated primitives.

There are a few options here:
1. Do nothing. Regenerate those primitives that need to be if the license changes. This is the easiest in the short term but will cause significant work in the long term
2. Change the license for machine generated primitives to public domain. Retain the original author line. This is more time consuming than doing nothing (and really only for me) but will result in less churn later on.
3. Similar to 2 but also have LDraw.org be the author to avoid any misunderstanding (I'm not super fond of this option).

[Magnus Forsberg]

I thought I already replied but apparently not...

As always, most of these types of posts are "shower thoughts" intended to spark conversation and not fully formed policy ready to be implemented.

Here's my though process:
- Primitives are essential and inseparable from the library.
- The license that is used by them need to be as permissive as possible
- Machine generated code is not copyrightable
- Therefore, I'm not sure the CC licenses apply to machine generated primitives.

There are a few options here:
1. Do nothing. Regenerate those primitives that need to be if the license changes. This is the easiest in the short term but will cause significant work in the long term
2. Change the license for machine generated primitives to public domain. Retain the original author line. This is more time consuming than doing nothing (and really only for me) but will result in less churn later on.
3. Similar to 2 but also have LDraw.org be the author to avoid any misunderstanding (I'm not super fond of this option).

Could you please explain how you interpret "permissive"?

[Orion Pobursky]

Could you please explain how you interpret "permissive"?

For non-machine generated prims, the license should allow the author to retain copyright while also granting irrevocable use and modification. I think CC BY 4 is fine in this regard but we also thought that with CC BY 2.

[Max Murtazin]

I think generative primitives should credit as author one, who came up with the primitive line. It makes the most sense to me

[Orion Pobursky]

What about all primitives are licensed under CC0:
https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/

[Willy Tschager]

What about all primitives are licensed under CC0:
https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/

This seems exactly what we are looking for.

w.

[N. W. Perry]

This seems exactly what we are looking for.

w.

Might be a good solution. To me, assigning a license to generatable content is akin to trying to copyright the phone book. (But I realize it needs to be done in order for LDraw to be allowed to function.)
Indeed, this might apply to all primitives, since in theory they are geometrically unambiguous and any author trying to construct one would presumably arrive at the same result, leaving no room from creative input and thus no intellectual property.

[Orion Pobursky]

I'll give this a few days for anyone to object and then send it to SteerCo. Note that CC0 is considered a "free license".

[Philippe Hurbain]

Looks like a good idea indeed.

leaving no room from creative input and thus no intellectual property.

...but some nitpickers could argue here. Some geometrical primitives such as the ering or even tndis required a bit of discussions to come out...

[Vincent Messenet]

CC0 would fit perfectly with prims generated by PrimGen.

For the others maybe this should be left to the author if he wants to release it under CC0 or not but I assume it could become mandatory for new prims if authors accept updated LDraw's policy mentioning that all prims must be submitted on PT with CC0 licence.

For already existing ones it would be similar with the migration from CC2 to CC4 so you would need to collect approval from all past authors... or get those prims rewritten by other authors as it is happening now.

[N. W. Perry]

Looks like a good idea indeed.
...but some nitpickers could argue here. Some geometrical primitives such as the ering or even tndis required a bit of discussions to come out...

Right…the creativity here being in deciding at a high level what primitives could exist and how they might be applied in a useful way. But once devised, each individual variant would be just applying the formula for that class of primitive. In theory, anyway.

Then again, there are certainly some files that we class as primitives, but that do show more creative input (and in that way are more like subparts). Logos, for example,

[Orion Pobursky]

I'd like it to be all or nothing. Either all prims go to CC0 or we stay on the current system. Piecemeal determinations will just lead to confusion and complaining.

[N. W. Perry]

I'd like it to be all or nothing. Either all prims go to CC0 or we stay on the current system. Piecemeal determinations will just lead to confusion and complaining.

I agree. I feel that if it's a primitive, then by definition its function is utilitarian and not creative* and thus is well reflected by a CC0 status. Conversely, if some case does arise where an author insists that a file has licensable creative content, then that becomes an argument for classifying as a part or subpart (for library/submission purposes anyway).

I don't foresee that case arising much, if ever, though.

*(As for the examples mentioned by Philo, you could also chalk those up to a distinction between "inventive"—i.e., patents or trademarks—and "creative"—i.e., copyrights. With the CC system we're only dealing with the latter, if I'm not mistaken.)

[Takeshi Takahashi]

Yes, I agree that all prims (no matter which geometrical ones, typefaces, or logos) should be CC0 without exceptions.

If an author want to claim copyright under CC-BY 4.0 for some works (supposedly logo etc.), they should be submitted in subparts folder with appropriate comments, I think.

[Orion Pobursky]

After looking at the amount of primitive authors (42), which I should have done first, I retract this proposal. I think the status quo is good enough

[Willy Tschager]

After looking at the amount of primitive authors (42), which I should have done first, I retract this proposal. I think the status quo is good enough

42 Cc By2.0 or all?

w.

[Orion Pobursky]

42 Cc By2.0 or all?

w.

All excluding 2.0

[Willy Tschager]

All excluding 2.0

The number might become handable once we have rewritten the 2.0?

w.