[x3d-public] Licensing [was: Call to Progress on X3D V4]

Thu Jan 14 14:39:35 PST 2016

On 1/14/2016 2:06 PM, doug sanden wrote:
>>> H0: desire by startup investors to enjoy upside potential of end-user
>>>   switching costs and LOCKIN
>>> H1: desire by startup investors to protect proprietary javascript
>>>   efforts from MIT license pollution and the lack of
>>>   BARRIERS-to-entry-and-competition that causes Proposed solution for H1
>>>   BARRIERS: generate abstract standard suitable for
>>>   proprietary/copyright implementation (as you are doing)
>>> Proposed solution for H0 LOCKIN: offer a format
>>>   mangling&proprietorization service, including legacy-to-new importer
>>>   generation.
>>>
>>>
>    
>> Real reasons:
>> 1) Lazy programmers
>> 2) NIH - not invented here
>>
>> Both of these happen before you get to H0.
> 1) and 2) doesn't explain Parisi  GLAM, but H0, H1 does.

After Tony put out GLAM, he was asked about X3DOM as it address pretty 
much every reason he gave for starting the work. He disavowed knowledge 
of it.

Leonard Daly

>
>
>
> From: x3d-public <x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org> on behalf of Leonard Daly <Leonard.Daly at realism.com>
> Sent: January 14, 2016 2:35 PM
> To: x3d-public at web3d.org
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Licensing [was: Call to Progress on X3D V4]
>    
>
>
>
>
>> An MIT license is permissive -- meaning you can do just about anything with the code, including incorporating it into proprietary systems.
>>   
> But not I gather changing the license to something more restrictive.
>    
> Doug,
>
> You can't change the original license - it's not your property to change; however, as I stated the material covered by the license can be incorporated into proprietary code and sold. Wikipedia has a good write up at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License
>
>
> MIT License - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> en.wikipedia.org
> The MIT License is a free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). [1] It is a permissive free software license, meaning that ...
>
>
>
>
>
> -Doug
> more..
> So a california startup seeking investors, and working in html/javascript which is easier to scrape and copy, will only have copyright as a barrier-to/protection-against later entrants/competitors simply copying all their hard work. So if they are going  to be mixing MIT opensource with their proprietary efforts, their own work may also become MIT if mixed in the same file, for example if they modify the code. Possibly this dilution of protection is causing the annoying proliferation of 3D formats.
> 1) This does not just apply to California.
> 2) That is the case for all JavaScript code that is downloaded to the client. Many websites, HTML files, and JavaScript code contain a notice that the code is copyrighted and licensed according to certain terms.  There are technical means to make it more difficult  to reuse protected code (e.g., obscuration). If you really need to protect something, you need to keep it under control (meaning at least on the server and not downloadable).
>
>
>
>
> more..
> Hypotheses for cause of proliferation of 3D formats:
> H0: desire by startup investors to enjoy upside potential of end-user switching costs and LOCKIN
> H1: desire by startup investors to protect proprietary javascript efforts from MIT license pollution and the lack of BARRIERS-to-entry-and-competition that causes Proposed solution for H1 BARRIERS: generate abstract standard suitable for proprietary/copyright implementation (as you are doing)
> Proposed solution for H0 LOCKIN: offer a format mangling&proprietorization service, including legacy-to-new importer generation.
>    
> Real reasons:
> 1) Lazy programmers
> 2) NIH - not invented here
>
> Both of these happen before you get to H0.
>
> All work on abstract standards are suitable for proprietary implementations. ParallelGraphics Cortona, MediaMachines initial Flux, BS Contact, SGI's CosmoPlayer were all proprietary implementations. That did not stop Xj3D, OpenVRML, FreeWRL, X3DOM, cobweb,  H3D and other open-source implementations. All of these (open and closed) support to varying degrees the display of open-standards X3D files.
>
>
> Leonard Daly
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: x3d-public <x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org> on behalf of Leonard Daly <Leonard.Daly at realism.com>
> Sent: January 14, 2016 12:40 PM
> To:  x3d-public at web3d.org
> Subject: Re: [x3d-public] Call to Progress on X3D V4
>    
>
> 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/db1fb563/attachment-0001.html>