<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/14/2016 10:54 AM, doug sanden
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CY1PR14MB05671921DAC0132F2F6569F8B6CC0@CY1PR14MB0567.namprd14.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> 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,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Q. what's the difference between open and standard?</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Doug,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm">http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm</a>).<br>
<br>
<br>
Leonard Daly<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CY1PR14MB05671921DAC0132F2F6569F8B6CC0@CY1PR14MB0567.namprd14.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
-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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:x3d-public@web3d.org">x3d-public@web3d.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org">http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<font class="tahoma,arial,helvetica san serif" color="#333366">
<font size="+1"><b>Leonard Daly</b></font><br>
3D Systems & Cloud Consultant<br>
X3D Co-Chair on Sabbatical<br>
LA ACM SIGGRAPH Chair<br>
President, Daly Realism - <i>Creating the Future</i>
</font></div>
</body>
</html>