[x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4

doug sanden highaspirations at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 14 10:54:04 PST 2016

> >  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?
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. 

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.

More information about the x3d-public mailing list