Unofficial File parts/u9255.dat
part image
File Header:
0 ~Magnet Holder for Train Base  6 x 16 Type 1
0 Name: u9255.dat
0 Author: Tore Eriksson [Tore_Eriksson]
0 !LDRAW_ORG Unofficial_Part
0 !LICENSE Redistributable under CCAL version 2.0 : see CAreadme.txt

0 BFC CERTIFY CCW

0 !HISTORY 2020-06-04 [Sirio]   Updated the use of primitives: removed ringr.dat or ringrr.dat, introduced 2-4cylc.dat and 4-4cylo.dat and box4o4a.dat
0 !HISTORY 2021-01-23 [Steffen] split up 735.dat into 735.dat and u9255.dat

Status:
Needs more votes. (CN)
Size: 1761 bytes
Reviewers' certifications:
MagFors=novote
RainbowDolphin=certify
Steffen=novote
Required (unofficial) subfiles:
(none)
Related (unofficial) subfiles:
File reviews and updates:
At Sat Jun 27 13:41:00 2020 part 'parts/u9255.dat' was renamed to 'parts/71533k02.dat'.
At Sat Jan 23 13:50:02 2021, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: Steffen
Comments:
split up 735.dat into 735.dat and u9255.dat

At Sat Jan 23 13:55:01 2021, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: Steffen
Comments:
removed comment

At Sat Feb 13 17:45:01 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:
The history is not correct. This is a new file.

At Sat Feb 13 22:55:01 2021, a new version of the file was submitted.
Submitted by: Steffen
Comments:
removed !HISTORY entries which do not apply to this file

Existing certification-votes were deleted.
At Sun Feb 14 07:45:01 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:
The header is not correct. This is a new file.
If you want to keep Tore's name in the file, place it as a History comment.

At Sun Feb 14 19:35:01 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
no, sorry, I disagree.
all the file contents is authored by Tore, that's why I kept him as author.
the file contents just has been moved to a different number: this one.
I don't think it would be legitimate to kick out his authorship this way.
when we move a file with a MOVED-TO redirect, we also take the authorship to the new number.
at the old number only the trivial redirect with author "PTaadmin" remains, and that's fine.
the authorship refers to the lines that are contained in the file.
and the ones in this one are by Tore, not me.

At Tue Feb 16 17:45:01 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: hold
Comments:
No, that is, as far as I know, not how we usually do it.
Make a search for "original design" and you'll find many files where the new author have taken ownership of the file,
and given credit to the original author in a history comment.

At Sat Feb 20 21:10:02 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
Yes, that's true when a redesign happens. In that case that procedere is OK, you are right.
But that is not what happened here.
Here, the file contents stayed unchanged and just got moved to a new number
I did not write any of these lines. I am not the author.
Remember my explanation above for the MOVED-TOs.
In those cases, also the file contents gets moved to a different number, but the author stays.
Please reconsider your hold vote.
At Sun Feb 21 15:35:01 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: hold
Comments:
I'm sorry, Steffen. I think you are wrong.
New file/part/subpart = new number = new author

At Mon Feb 22 14:50:02 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: Steffen
Certification: novote
Comments:
If that's the law, then the law has an error.
Such a law makes no sense.
As this is a hobby, not nuclear safety, we should always follow the law by spirit, not by letter.
The rule exists to preserve the intellectual authorship of an author.
That's why we had created it long time ago.
Applying it the way you insist here would counteract the goal of that law.
I think the law is misformulated or ambiguous.
Why would we do it differently here than with normal MOVED-TO's?
That makes no sense.

At Mon Feb 22 16:00:01 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:
If you have a problem with the practices, bring it up in the forum.
I'll retract my vote, and ask for a second opinion from another reviewer.

At Tue Feb 23 20:50:01 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/s/57518s02.dat

At Mon Mar 15 17:10:02 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: MagFors
Certification: novote
Comments:
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/s/3023s01.dat

At Tue Jul 20 03:25:01 2021, the following review was posted:

Reviewer: RainbowDolphin
Certification: certify
Comments:
IMHO, the authorship is treated as case-by-case (especially simple splitting part), and no need for sticking to a hard rule.
I think you may take the authorship of this part, or retain the original author for split-only part, with your discretion.
Taking the authorship and writing HISTORY line for original shape/pattern credit complying with CC-BY license, will be one of the ways.
https://www.ldraw.org/cgi-bin/ptdetail.cgi?f=parts/4867p13.dat