Eurobricks Vassals
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About xlib

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

883 profile views
  1. I just wanted to point out that those "stolen" videos doesn't actually infringe copyright. Whenever I browse sites like rebrickable or this very forum, I never saw license terms attached to some model (unless instructions are sold). This said, if I take, for example, Sariel's model, assemble it and make a video about it, law says that I'm legitimate copyright holder. Re-posting video is also "a-OK" in the eyes of law, especially when you do it on the same site (youtube). It may be some TOS violation, though. Plagiarism is bad, but not illegal.
  2. :) That's because "likeness rights" is not a thing. Most close concept (in USA) is "design patent" (kind of patent Apple fought Samsung) or publicity rights for people.
  3. The license attached to LDD prohibit commercial use. Quote: You may NOT: (vii) use the Software or the backup copy for any commercial purpose; (viii) remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Software or Documentation; So the answer is simple - commercial use of LDD will violate its license. There's no such thing. Lego attempted to patent its bricks, and failed to do so. You can even manufacture compatible bricks, unless you call them "Lego" or any other registered phrase, like "Nexo" (that would be trademark violation). Now, since you're seeking legal advice on internet forum instead of your lawyer, I suspect that it is possible that nobody will care, you're not shooting Hollywood blockbuster.
  4. According to ebay listing calculator that listing would cost $750.
  5. And in software world this kind of request is common practice. Like 'derived work must retain licence and give credit'. Idea that can be bought and sold is called 'patent'. It doesn't require to give credit.
  6. Yes, all this is correct. Actually, it means 1) my volume estimate is correct, it's container-sized and 2) my price estimate is off by only x1.5. Very big, too expensive - fake.
  7. Uhm - no. "Ships to: Worldwide" However, back-of-envelope calculation shows that: Dimensions of "Lego 42009 mobile crane" are 22.9 x 18.9 x 3.6 inches, and weight is 8.6 pounds. Assuming that those ~4500kg have about same density, it takes about 35m^3. Volume of common shipping container is 39m^3. This thing is huge. Same amount of those cranes will cost about $350K which is about x3 cheaper, and it's for new stuff. Conclusion - 100% fake. Or advertising. Or something.
  8. Or, alternatively, you can take a look at http://ev3lessons.com/index.html
  9. 1. You asked 2 questions: a)"press X times -> run X'th program" and b)"run the program depending on color sensor output". Answer for "b" is simple - you're just using "switch" block controlled by output of color sensor. Or maybe I'm missing something? Answer for "a", however, is more complicated. What you say "press button 2 times" what you actually mean is "time between press #1 and #2 is less then some threshold". So, you should build simple state machine here - touch sensor starting timer. Then you wait for timeout expiration or new button press. If timeout expired - act upon number of presses you counted. And yes, this is somewhat complicated, maybe i will come up with examples later. 2. This looks simple - just have another loop that counts distance and stop the motors (or do other action).
  10. First of all, I really like an idea of more-than-basic PF controller. However: 1. Price Fair comparison is $15 x 2 + $13 + $12 (cost of 6 AAA rechargeable batteries) = $55 vs $100, with added bonus of replaceable batteries. 2. Setup IR connection require switch in correct position; BT connection require pairing. Depending on firmware this may limit connectivity to 1/2/3 specific phone(s)/tablet(s). 3. Connectivity Connecting BT stuff to iPhone require Apple's certification and maybe royalties. This is not even mentioned on product page, and may add to cost. 4. API availability Closed, proprietary API is bad idea in almost any case, and this is not an exception. Lack of reasonably open API is definitely a drawback. CE, FCC and similar certifications are usually handled by supplier of BT component.
  11. Yes, library is documented. And copyrighted. So you can't "easy to extend the library" - only with author's permission.
  12. Ah, I see where confusion is coming from. Let me explain. Yes, LDD2POVRay and Bluerenderer are using data from LDD, but in order to do that, you must download and install LDD by yourself. This is key point here - you may use files which are legally installed on your computer, but you may not distribute files of someone else. So, you your program require LDD to be installed in order to use its library - that's OK. But distribute LDD's library (or anything derived from it) along with your program - not OK. So, IMHO relying on LDD library is bad proposition - this data is internal to LDD and developers are not required to maintain backward compatibility even IF application is continued to be supported.
  13. LDCad is close-sourced. Its library is copyrighted. Even IF you somehow understand how its library works, you can't (legally) take it. Same true for SR3D. Yes, _stud_ is indeed primitive. But opposite part of stud (how does it called?) is not. Think: you connect stud in the middle between 4 "walls". That's just place where stud fits. How do you automatically define this point when surrounding "walls" are not parts of some logical structure? IIRC it's hard algorithmic problem.
  14. In privacy of your home you can do whatever you want, disassembling programs included. Of cause, you can't distribute modified copyrighted stuff, be it book, program and so on. That is only true for disassembling native machine code. In case of run-on-VM languages, like Java, .NET and similar you may get actual human-readable source code. Even identifiers will be preserved in some cases. In your example, “benefits = revenues - expenses” can be disassembled to MoneyModule.var1 = MoneyModule.var2 - MoneyModule.var3. Data which accompanying the program is copyrighted in same was as a program itself. Meaning, that if you understand .DOC format, it doesn't mean you can (legally) reuse Microsoft's templates coming with Office install. So, while .G format is pretty simple, reverse engineering of it will bring no actual benefit beyond academic exercise.