yeah Yorik … +1 here too. Norman for FreeCAD developer! 
The colors are set per faces for the chamfer and at the moment the function to assign the colors doesn’t take care of the transparency but this is fixed now with a395c570f.
Due to this issue the colors are saved with wrong alpha value to the file and when loading it the alpha values of the colors are wrong. To fix it you must repeat the step to set the colors per face.
I have no idea if it’s an issue with the freecad-daily PPA, or an issue with Qt 5 : two icons in the Image workbench are missing.
The icons were fine when the package was built with Qt 4. I’m currently unable to compile FreeCAD with Qt 5, some Qt 4 bits obstinately remain and the build fails at about 61% - I guess I’ll have to try to build from scratch rather than on top of my old Qt 4 build. Or read forum topics about it…
OS: Ubuntu 18.04.1 LTS
Word size of OS: 64-bit
Word size of FreeCAD: 64-bit
Version: 0.18.15536 (Git)
Build type: Release
Branch: master
Hash: 98ebeaa198df945ba666c15912c6caf95920f0ef
Python version: 2.7.15rc1
Qt version: 5.9.5
Coin version: 4.0.0a
OCC version: 7.3.0
Locale: French/Canada (fr_CA)
thanks Werner 
Personally I would object. 
First, I think it is important to recognise your weight in the project for historical reasons. It did not go there without reason in the first place.
Second on a legal point (IANAL), it might not be legally sound to distribute the copyright over the whole community. It is also unclear what exactly this copyright applies exactly to. Each contributing individual holds its copyright under the LGPL terms. It is the individual holding of the copyright which enables the LGPL terms to be applied. I think that it might not be legally clear either to attribute a non-legal entity with a copyright and I think it has the potential to only bring (legal) problems.
I am for the Community, but exactly for that reason, I would maintain the original copyright notice. 
Your arguments make sense… I’m just sometimes annoyed that some people come and seem to think only the 3 of us are the authors (or "owners ) of FreeCAD.. I would like to find a way to say otherwise there
This made me really curious. Personally, I think:
(c) 2019 The FreeCAD Community
or
(c) 2019 The FreeCAD Community Developers
is sufficient.
Referencing Wikipedia:
In United States copyright law, a copyright notice is a notice of statutorily prescribed form that informs users of the underlying claim to copyright ownership in a published work.
…
US law no longer requires the use of a copyright notice, although placing it on a work does confer certain benefits to the copyright holder. Prior law did, however, require a notice, and the use of a notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.
Essentially, the purpose of the copyright notice is to inform the user that the work is copyrighted. It’s legal value is in defeating an ‘innocent use’ argument, where the defendant claims they did not know it was copyrighted. Thus, it’s a notice to the users of the work that a copyright is in effect, but it does not constitute a legal claim of copyright in itself. That’s what we have the LGPL for.
Therefore I think community-level copyright notice is sufficient, as FreeCAD is protected under a copyright that is held by individuals of the community. It provides users a notice that FreeCAD is a copyrighted work and the notice reflects the true nature of the copyrights, but it is not a legal interpretation of those copyrights.
Of course, that’s the US law view. I cannot say what international copyright laws may require. I might recommend sending an email to the Software Freedom Conservancy for clarification.
Also, we can write that notice any way we like. For example:
(c) 2019 The FreeCAD Community under the Lesser GNU Public License (LGPL)
would be an explicit, comprehensive description of the copyright, unless we have other licenses in the mix. In which case, I’d list those as well or just eliminate them altogether.
Anyway, from a legal vantage point, I really don’t think it matters what we put in it. But, as Abudllah pointed out, IANAL. 
Corporations like Bell Labs, Airbus, Seimens, GE, Boeing, etc. are successful because of “corporate-knowledge” (the ability to solve complicated challenges); not one or two really talented engineers.
The FreeCAD Community is very similar. The strength of this community comes from the-many who participate in a small to sometimes very-large way for SO long.
There are plenty of contributors to FreeCAD that are un acknowledged in my opinion! I myself dont need to “see-my-name-in-pixels”. Some people do I suppose. Better to do well by doing good; oh, sht, I better give credit to the american B. Franklin! And just like Ben, i dont believe in patents and copyrights you robber barons!
(c) 2019 The FreeCAD Community at this point is probably a wise decision. If someone really wants to know who contributed to FreeCAD, they can start reading the FORUM and determine themselves.
The big corporations have a legal status, so they well can be copyright holders. I’m not sure if the FreeCAD community has.
You three (well, currently two) guarantee the freedom of FreeCAD. If the community owns rights it might open a loophole for hostile takeover.
As it stands now, you 3 can give out freecad under a special license on request.
Say company x want to use your stuff and not share, they can approach you and say, can we get an licence where we do not have to share our work if we pay. You are free to do this.
It happened to me once, I made an LGPL licensed graphics accelerator and was later approached by a subcontractor that worked for a defence industry, they did not want to share their work based on our design and wanted to buy a seperate license.
As a pasifist, i put a steep price and never heard from them again, they probably used it anyway…
Almost related:
https://youtu.be/-hCimLnIsDA
Hello,
is there any chance to enable the Datum Coordinate System in PartDesign WB toolbar and menu for v0.18 release ? (~/src/Mod/PartDesign/App/DatumCS.h|cpp) It will be very important for LinkStage3 and asm3 (v0.19 ?), so it would be great if people could get used to it, and also if the usage could be improved a bit. The functionality is there since a looong time (v0.16 probably), can be added by the Python window, the commands and buttons are all there, but strangely they are not enabled in the GUI. It’s not a new feature, it’s only a button in a toolbar and an entry in a menu.
It needs 2 lines in
~/src/Mod/PartDesign/Gui/Workbench.cpp
Gui::MenuItem* Workbench::setupMenuBar() const
...
<< "PartDesign_Plane"
+++ << "PartDesign_CoordinateSystem"
Gui::ToolBarItem* Workbench::setupToolBars() const
...
<< "PartDesign_Plane"
+++ << "PartDesign_CoordinateSystem"
and a dozen lines, which are only clones of Datum_Plane, _Line, _Point, in
~/src/Mod/PartDesign/Gui/Command.cpp
/* Datum feature commands =======================================================*/
+++
DEF_STD_CMD_A(CmdPartDesignCS);
CmdPartDesignCS::CmdPartDesignCS()
:Command("PartDesign_CoordinateSystem")
{
sAppModule = "PartDesign";
sGroup = QT_TR_NOOP("PartDesign");
sMenuText = QT_TR_NOOP("Create a local coordinate system");
sToolTipText = QT_TR_NOOP("Create a new local coordinate system");
sWhatsThis = "PartDesign_CoordinateSystem";
sStatusTip = sToolTipText;
sPixmap = "PartDesign_CoordinateSystem";
}
void CmdPartDesignCS::activated(int iMsg)
{
Q_UNUSED(iMsg);
UnifiedDatumCommand(*this, Base::Type::fromName("PartDesign::CoordinateSystem"),"LCS");
}
bool CmdPartDesignCS::isActive(void)
{
if (getActiveGuiDocument())
return true;
else
return false;
}
+++
void CreatePartDesignCommands(void)
{
Gui::CommandManager &rcCmdMgr = Gui::Application::Instance->commandManager();
rcCmdMgr.addCommand(new CmdPartDesignShapeBinder());
rcCmdMgr.addCommand(new CmdPartDesignClone());
+++ rcCmdMgr.addCommand(new CmdPartDesignCS());
rcCmdMgr.addCommand(new CmdPartDesignPlane());
rcCmdMgr.addCommand(new CmdPartDesignLine());
rcCmdMgr.addCommand(new CmdPartDesignPoint());
Tested with v0.18—Py3—Qt5 and v0.18—LinkStage3.
@Yorik do you have a larger version of the screenshot you used for the splash screen? I like to update the facebook page picture to match the splash, but the one in this thread has too low resolution.
+1, I wanted to ask the same thing for the FreeCAD Mastodon account
55a4f78ad
This datum feature seems to be pretty useful.
Well done! considering the statement above 
It was not my aim to start a discussion on copyright law. It is a very complex topic
The original 3 author statement is not incoherent with reality. They exist and their work IS indeed copyrighted by them, so that part of FreeCAD is copyrighted by them. FreeCAD contains copyrighted work that includes that indicated work. That statement does not mean that ALL the work is owned by them. Copyright belongs to its holders. I would maintain that line unchanged.
A lot of people contribute to FreeCAD. However, a contributor is not a copyright holder. The copyright holders are the persons who wrote the code itself. Not even the people having the original idea, who did not code it. For this reason, one should not see merit just because it is in the copyright notice. A company may be in the copyright just because it bought the whole thing, so other than financial success to pay for it, there is little merit. A reimplementation changes the copyright. So one can generally copy the idea in a separate sufficiently different implementation without infringing the copyright. A copyright is not a patent, it is just the right to produce replicas.
The FreeCAD Community does not legally exist. I do think that is a problem. Even if it would exist, and unless the copyright holder would assign the copyright to it, it would not hold any copyright.
All someone may love or hate lawyers and legal systems, they are there to stay. Law is not uniform over the planet. Judges can be very competent or otherwise, and some of them I occasionally find very imaginative. Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if a particular judge would interpret Yorik’s removing his name and substituting it by “The FreeCAD Community” as a copyright assignment of his rights in some country. For this reason, I am of the general opinion that it is better not to produce contradictory or misleading information.
On the other side, FreeCAD is one of very little projects that acknowledges all the kinds of contributions of its community (not only coders). It does it by name in the “About” dialog and in alphabetic order (For which, until somebody, like an “Aaron” beats me to it, I will remain the first in the list despite the proportionally lower merit in contributions). That is very much telling which kind of community we are… and this post demonstrates that I still have a lot to learn in reducing the length of my posts 
Each little piece of code of FreeCAD is indeed copyrighted by its author. So there are in reality not three, but tenths (hundreds?) of copyright owners in FreeCAD. The person who appears in the copyright block at the beginning of each file would, I believe, be the one legally “owning” that file.
“(c) 2019 The FreeCAD Developers” could be a good way to say it… It doesn’t pretend to attribute the copyright to anyone else than the author…
You’re right. Strangely, it’s one I really enjoy learning about. Might be getting a bit off-topic for the thread, though…
It’s certainly better if only one or a few hold the copyright for the project - it makes legal matters much easier to handle. However, unless there’s a FreeCAD CLA which requires contributors to assign copyright to the FreeCAD authors (which is a good idea, IMO), I would think the individual contributors do hold copyright over the code they’ve written.
A (dated) reference that I found helpful makes that point:
https://haacked.com/archive/2006/01/26/WhoOwnstheCopyrightforAnOpenSourceProject.aspx/
But I don’t claim to know with certainty.
In any case, I think it’s really a good question for the Conservancy folks. I highly recommend someone sending off an email to them because this does matter to the project and we need to sort it out so we can plan for how we handle these issues in the future.
Considering abdullah’s concerns, I’d say as long as one legal entity is listed in the notice, it’s sufficient. It doesn’t assign copyright to anyone, it just lets the user know the material is, in fact, copyrighted.
That means we should stick with the existing notice… or possibly:
Copyright 2019, Juergen Riegel, Werner Mayer, Yorik van Havre and the FreeCAD Community
The file is here
The original content of a file, provided that nothing was copied into it, belongs to that author. A file, as today, is partly copyrighted to everybody that has modified it. Provided that everybody has used git and the whole story is kept, every author has the copyright for each portion introduced by him and the file as today is copyrighted to all of them. Of course, the original content remains copyrighted to only he who created it.
All this is reasonably kept under control for the purpose of open source because of LGPL. I do not need to ask permission to just grab it, everything for my personal project (Golum style), opensource or not, made public or not, as far as I comply with the conditions of LPGL.
Giving a license different from LGPL is rather unfeasible as the project expands, as every single one out of the 182 contributors in GitHub (provided that there is nobody else missing from the older days) shall approve it, or their code excised, unless that other license is compatible with LGPL. For a true opensource project, having it spread over infinite legal persons with a broad enough copyleft license is even better than assigning copyright and being in the hands of the next of kind of the assignee
That said, I originally only wanted to note my preference to keep seeing Yorik explicitly listed and ensuring legal persons were not removed. I promise not to go further off-topic with this.