[x3d-public] Essential Characteristics of X3D

[doug sanden]

I suspect some of the web3d.org processes are geared to defending against proprietary claims. By preventing them. 
Right now, its all or none. Either you become a member and sign off on all the agreements. Or else none of your brilliant suggestions can be used.
It might help if there was something half way. Perhaps you sign a short form. And thereafter, when you wrap an idea in comment's like:
WEB3D RULE #77 START >>>
<<< WEB3D RULE #77 END
then whatever is in there would get rule 77 treatment. Whatever rule 77 is. Let's say it means you're giving up all future claims on it, or whatever the longform says. But someone might try some kind of bait-and-switch, or give up part of an idea, then fill in details later in a different permission scope.
I suspect that's why they like a person -new member- to sign-away all future claims in one shot. Easier to manage.

If you have a solution for all that it might help open things up.

That's one issue.

Then from the app user's point of view, they are going to be putting a lot of effort into generating content. They aren't legal experts. But they would probably like to know what part of what they are doing is only served by one proprietary app, and what part is portable to other apps. So they can decide how much effort to put into doing their content a certain way.
If all they see is 'x3d standards compatible' or a statement like that, it might be misleading. 
On the other hand, if the user is looking for some compatibility so that -at least with some effort- they could port their content to other apps if needed, it would be helpful for them to know if an app is somehow similar to the x3d standards. So it doesn't seem quite fair to not say something about x3d if the app is close.

So if you have a solution for that - a way to be clear, while also giving credit and warnings either way, that might help.




________________________________________
From: Yves Piguet <yves.piguet at gmail.com>
Sent: November 19, 2016 11:16 AM
To: doug sanden
Cc: X3D Public
Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Essential Characteristics of X3D

On 19 Nov 2016, at 18:07, doug sanden <highaspirations at hotmail.com<mailto:highaspirations at hotmail.com>> wrote:

OK Yves, starting to sink in. Thanks for repeating your Oct 13 suggestion.
What you're saying is for $138 swiss francs, and a bit of paper work, CalergaVR could conform to web3d standards by defining and registering its profile.

Not sure it would be so easy, I haven't read ISO/IEC 9973. I don't know if a registration request is guaranteed to be accepted if the paperwork is done properly, and if it takes weeks, months or years. I wouldn't be surprised if it costs much more.

Q. is there a subtle difference between a standard, and an specific 'application interface' (is there a better term)?
- lets say a 'standard' means anyone can implement the standard. So if you register the CalergaVR profile, I could write a browser that conforms to the CalergaVR profile and you would have no recourse in the courts to block my effort as stealing proprietary intellectual property

Calerga VR's extensions are roughly what I've suggested here. I do it in good faith with the hope it can be useful to me (because of other's feedback) as well as to others if they're convinced and implement them. It would be great also for Calerga VR if extensions like field expressions are adopted widely, and I certainly won't sue anyone for that. It's also obvious to me that some of the things I consider useful, such as my NumberInput node, won't be welcome.

- an 'application interface' can be proprietary.

Subject to fair use, as I understand the Oracle vs. Google outcome.

You can block me insofar as it's not part of a standard

I could probably try, at least.

And if there is this difference then I suspect the profile registration process in the web3d specs is for the 'standard'.

Maybe. I don't know the licensing policy of ISO.

Q. are you proposing these x- or x/ profiles would be standards, or proprietary, or could/should there be both?

They would be reserved for custom profiles for the owner of the corresponding domain name, without further registration, like namespaces in Java.

By "standard" do you mean "open"? Could be both open or proprietary, whatever the domain name owner decides. I'm not fond of proprietary formats.

Thanks,

Yves