Policy on modifying standard library objects

[SenecaDesignLLC]

well I cant really ask for money for the cabinet as it is not my property. I could however send you a detailed step by step process to add the option yourself. Its really not to difficult, and it will give you some more indepth knowledge of gdl. maybe a small paypal donation? to compensate for my wifes anger ha ha? and i guess for the time to write up the how to? Hmm...


[Update by moderator: Since Archicad 23, library part licensing has been changed to :
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
https://Archicad-talk.Graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=47320&start=20#p315061]

[SenecaDesignLLC]

Per the license that is on all archicad objects i cannot even share this object with you for free. i asked some questions and will let you know if they will even let me share the how to with out it being free.

[SenecaDesignLLC]

we will see what i hear back from the admin. then we can go from there.

[Laszlo Nagy]

Yes, I contacted GS and asked them about the exact policy.
Hope to hear back from them soon.

[rob2218]

I'm confused...what's the concern at hand?
we have a user who has the ability to modify an existing proprietary object. What he would be compensated for would be "his time and skills" to be able to put together a step-by-step tutorial on how to actually make a custom object from an existing AC object.....so I'm a bit confused as to what the issue (or non-issue) is here?

laszlonagy wrote:
Yes, I contacted GS and asked them about the exact policy.
Hope to hear back from them soon.

[Laszlo Nagy]

His plans are not only to create a tutorial on how to do this specific modification. That I think he is free to do at any time. Based on what he told me he has the plan to modify such objects and offer them to other people as well for a price or on some donation basis, which can be considered redistribution of the modified GDL object content.

I just don't know what this licence type allows (all GDL Objects in the deafult AC Library have this licence type I think):

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/

which says:

NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

So I told James (SenecaDesignLLC) to wait for GS's response.

[vistasp]

laszlonagy wrote:
Based on what he told me he has the plan to modify such objects and offer them to other people as well for a price or on some donation basis, which can be considered redistribution of the modified GDL object content.

Hmm... What about objects that are modified/fixed and then given back to the community on this forum, the depository or elsewhere? What's the protocol on that?

I wish this was the license instead:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

[Laszlo Nagy]

OK, guys, so I asked Graphisoft and this is what I was told:

With this license type it is not allowed to modify any ArchiCAD GDL Object. It also means such modified objects cannot be redistributed or sold for commercial pruposes. This is actually something that is written also on the page of Creative Commons about license types:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

There it says:

Attribution-NoDerivs
CC BY-ND

This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.

So any GDL Object coming from Graphisoft that has this license type (you can check the license type of any object by opening the object for editing, then check the License field in the Details page) cannot be modified.
It can be redistributed only unchanged and in whole.

[Karl Ottenstein]

I'm not sure that it says that a user cannot modify the object, Laszlo. See:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

where it says you can not distribute modified material ... but does not say you cannot modify for your own use.

Thus, people can still provide instructions here about what lines of code to insert, as I read this... as long as the reader does the insertion/editing themselves and does not distribute the result.

The biggest problem that I see is when people who modify an object for themselves only, have every intention of honoring the license, but then send a PLA to a colleague... even in the same office. Since the PLA contains the modified object, the license is then violated.

The fact that a single firm cannot internally modify an object for their own internal use... whereas a single individual can do so ... seems too strict.

All seems very awkward.

[Laszlo Nagy]

OK, let me run another round with Graphisoft about this.