[x3d-public] Open/Standards Definition [was: Call to Progress on X3D V4]

[Leonard Daly]

On 1/14/2016 10:54 AM, doug sanden wrote:
>>>   Joe, If x3dom node definitions are not proprietary -if they are
>>>   web3d.org- then why doesn't Leonard just snapshot x3dom node
>>>   definitions and call it version 4?
>>> Doug,
>>>
>>>
>> X3DOM is separately licensed under MIT and GNU - making it open source.
>> The nodes, fields, and design of the internals is open, but not standard.
> Q. what's the difference between open and standard?

Doug,

Anything can be open. It is up to the owner of the copyright or patent 
to determine what license is used to control access. An open license 
(like BSD, MIT, GNU, etc) can be used, or one that is closed (typical 
commercial license), or something that is in between.

A standard (in the context of Web3D Consortium) means a description of 
the standard way of doing something as defined by an international 
standards body. ISO, IEEE, World Wide Web Consortium, and ECMA are all 
examples of international standards organizations. Word 9 (or whatever 
version produce .doc [not .docx] files) was also a standard. That 
standard was proprietary to Microsoft, but people could work with it 
because all .doc readers were written to that standard. Word 11 writes 
.docx files, which is an international standard (ECMA-376 
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm).


Leonard Daly



> -Doug
> more..
> Hypothesis: similar to previous web3d.org standards, it allows developers to develop competing products.
> That means the execution model has been abstracted from code into a design. Much like if you were reverse engineering a product into a design in one room, then giving the design to developers in a second room, to clean out any copyright.
>
> more..
> And perhaps that's what's uncertain - does the world need the abstracted design if it has MIT opensource?
>
> Where the abstract design might be handy is if any california investors want their startups to add /create intellectual property in the form of copyright, by re-implementing in their own code, from abstract design. Then hacking/adding their own proprietary differences. That way their own efforts aren't contaminated with MIT license code. That might give them a bit more of the proprietary protection against later competitors copying and pasting. While allowing end-users fairly familiar content format - likely an easy translation from standards-based exporters.
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>


-- 
*Leonard Daly*
3D Systems & Cloud Consultant
X3D Co-Chair on Sabbatical
LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair
President, Daly Realism - /Creating the Future/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20160114/e2be5fb2/attachment.html>