[x3d-public] 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
> 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?

The MIT license applies to software. The USPTO has rules that APIs 
cannot be copyrighted nor patented; however, there are some conflicting 
court rulings.

The standards document has a copyright that is owned by Web3D and ISO 
(in some sort of undetermined relationship). The current documents have 
a license that is "All Rights Reserved". That does not restrict someone 
from creating code using that document that implements what is in the 
document. It does restrict someone from copying the descriptions in the 
document into their code with permission.

An MIT license is permissive -- meaning you can do just about anything 
with the code, including incorporating it into proprietary systems.

By having the abstract structure of the scene as a standard you can 
derive multiple formats from it. By having encodings (formats) as 
standards, everyone knows how to express their idea. Including the 
run-time in the abstract tells people how these systems should behave 
and how they respond to various changes in the environment.

Having a standard essentially undercuts organizations forcing buy-in to 
a particular format. In general, users do not want that because it 
becomes harder to change. Creators do not want that because it limits 
their distribution. The only people who like it are those too lazy to 
develop something significant and/or want to control all aspects of your 
use of the content.


Leonard Daly






>
> 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/20160114/146acc07/attachment.html>