Community standards for a LEGO kit?

[Richmond]

On 06/05/14 16:26, Richard Gaskin wrote:

<snip>
> Of course for any such community initiative to get started it would 
> need a name that doesn't include a well-established registered 
> trademark like "Lego".

I suspect that Charles Buchwald lifted "Lego kit" from my use of it.

I have been using it to mean a modular system where 'code blocks' 
[pre-made objects containing
code snippets that can be chained together] can be fitted together, 
either 2 dimensionally as with
Scratch, or (????) 3 dimensionally.

"Lego kit" is a convenient metaphor as the vast majority of people on 
both the Use-List and the Forums
are conversant with what LEGO [the trademarked toy] is and how it is used.

I don't think either Charles Buchwald, or any other correspondents 
intend to impinge on the
Lego company's trademark; however, just as 'Hoover' means 'vacuum 
cleaner' in Britain [ and,
as I discovered at my peril when I was in the USA, means something quite 
different over there],
so, I believe 'Lego' has come to mean any sort of children's toy 
consisting of components that
can be combined in a multiplicity of ways.

Any sort of modular, code block front-end for Livecode has to consist of 
objects [probably groups
consisting of an image and one or more textFields] that can be combined 
in a multiplicity of
combinations on the basis of a few simple underlying principles, exactly 
like Lego blocks.

----------------

Obviously a community-led initiative to make some sort of a "LEGO kit" 
front end for Livecode
would not be called "LEGO kit": but it might, for instance, be called 
"LIVE kit".

Certainly the word "kit" has a certain buzz to it.

Or "LIVE blocks" . . .

Well; just a couple of suggestions.

Richmond.