| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> It's targeted at kids and novice users, so it's not meant to "compete" with
> the powerful tools that have been developed for the LDraw file format.
But, whether or not it's meant to compete, it will compete, won't it? Or
will it have such a limited parts selection that only kids would want to
use it? What about the more complex powerful LEGO building tools mentioned
below? Won't those compete with tools that have been developed for the LDraw
file format?
Sorry, I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, Jake. I'm just getting
mixed signals. Some of my data is old, so I understand that things may have
changed significantly.
When Brad Justus spoke of this 2 1/2 years ago, he said specifically that
LEGO wanted to release a file format for parts, with the intention being
for that format to become the standard for interchange of LEGO models online
and among friends in person. He said that LEGO would provide tools for
converting between LEGO's proprietary file format and LDraw format (and
vice-versa) but that LEGO wanted to control the LXF file format. Now I
didn't get the impression that LEGO wanted to compete head-to-head against
LDraw per se but that LEGO was more concerned about some competitor (e.g.,
Mega-Bloks, etc.) coming in and beating LEGO to the punch and establishing
itself as the de-facto standard first, which would weaken LEGO's position.
Brad asked us for our opinions on how this might be received when it was
pitched to the LCAD community. We said it probably would be received well
but expressed concerns over the nature of the file format. I said that I
thought it would be well received *if* LEGO could reassure people that the
file format would be well documented so that anyone could write their own
tools, and not have to go through a proprietary SDK to read and write LXF
files, and that it probably would not be well received if the file format
were completely proprietary, binary, and undocumented. Suzanne said that
she hoped people in the community didn't end up feeling used after all is
said and done. All in all, we thought it would be received well, regardless
of the details of the file format.
Anyway. I didn't sign an NDA back then, so I wasn't able to get very many
details...only what was volunteered by Brad. I've kept silent on this since
Nov 2000 out of respect for the fact that this project wasn't public, but now
that the LXF file format project and DD is announced publicly, I think it
would be great if we could all talk about our concerns publicly, for those
of us who have concerns.
Whether or not LXF is designed to "compete" with LDraw isn't really something
that worries me... What worries me is wondering what life will be like in a
world where LXF files can only be manipulated via an SDK, and where we won't
be able to create our own parts in LXF format if LEGO doesn't provide all the
parts.
I see at least one way that LEGO benefits from having tools like MLCAD support
the LXF format, but if the LCAD community is not in the target market for this
product, what does the LCAD community gain by supporting the LXF format? I'm
worried that all the good LCAD developers will, two years down the road, be
bound by NDA and restricted somewhat in freedom of movement. For example,
what if LEGO has come up with some totally ingenious method for encoding
part connections, and that method is covered under NDA? It would hard for
the community to implement the same method in LDraw format or some successor
of it.
I'd love to be wrong, though. But part of my job is to be skeptical. :-)
> As they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> building tools.
This sounds encouraging! :-) Do you mean that Digital Designer 1.0 is but
the first in a sequence of ever-more-powerful and exciting software coming
down the pike from LEGO? Do you think LEGO ever might release something as
powerful as MLCAD?
> - Will your new building applications open DAT/LDR/MPD files?
> Probably not, but we hope to provide some tools for translating DAT/LDR/MPD
> into LXF.
What about the other direction? Will LEGO be providing tools for translating
LXF files into DAT/LDR/MPD?
> There are many complex issues involved and we will be asking for
> information from the LDraw community to help with this goal.
Yay, I'm glad to see this level of interaction!
BTW, will this input take place publicly or behind closed doors?
> [...] We would definitely like to see the tools necessary to go back and
> forth between the two formats, because there is a lot of great stuff out
> there in the LDraw file format.
Does LEGO plan to release software that converts both directions or would
the LXF->LDR conversion be left to the community? If the latter, would
that developer be bound under NDA?
> - Are you going to release a parts library?
> It makes a lot of sense for us to release parts, as LEGO is the source of
> all official parts anyway. However, we do not yet have a complete plan for
> how or if we can do this, and it's highly unlikely that we'd be able to
> release every part all at once. Your input on this issue is more than
> welcome; please tell us what would be useful for you.
It would be useful to me to be able to download new parts as individual files
as well as ZIP-file collections. I wouldn't mind paying a licensing fee to
use and adapt the parts.
I assume I won't need to pay a licensing fee to publish LXF files on the
Internet.
> - Is the LXF format going to be open, will you publish it and will we be
> able to extend it?
> We will provide all of the necessary information in the SDK so that
> independent developers can make their own tools that use LXF. However, as
> many developers will tell you, it's good to try and manage the growth of a
> format to some extent, so we would like to maintain the official list of
> what the format includes.
I understand that answer to mean that we will not be able to extend the
format. How about the first half of the question, just so we understand
100% and can put speculation to rest. :-) Will LEGO be publishing any
documentation on the file format itself? Will that documentation be freely
available or will a person have to sign an NDA in order to obtain a copy of
it?
Thanks,
--Todd
|
|
| |
In my opinion, what killed the community's enthusiuasm for working with LEGO
was LEGO's intention to patent the file format (and complicate it to do so.)
Since then, LEGO has obtained a government monopoly on CAD that is so broad,
it could even be construed to cover LDRAW (if not for the obvious fact that
LDRAW is prior art, aside from the lack of documentation of that fact.)
At the least, no one can know where they stand without hiring a lawyer.
Since we are writing code for free, that's not really in the cards.
For this reason, it is necessary for LEGO to freely license its
recently-acquired "intellectual property" (I emphasize the dubious nature of
software patents) if it wants something in return, i.e. that we all work
with LEGO for free. Anything less will leave uncertainty, fear and doubt.
The matter will probably never be clear. I doubt Compaq will license its
software patents for virtual LEGO.
-Erik
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> > It's targeted at kids and novice users, so it's not meant to "compete" with
> > the powerful tools that have been developed for the LDraw file format.
>
> But, whether or not it's meant to compete, it will compete, won't it? Or
> will it have such a limited parts selection that only kids would want to
> use it? What about the more complex powerful LEGO building tools mentioned
> below? Won't those compete with tools that have been developed for the LDraw
> file format?
More on this post tomorrow, but a couple of quick answers. By compete, I
just meant that our DD software isn't meant to compete with, say MLCad. It
is designed for use by kids around the age of 7 or 8. MLCad, I would assume,
doesn't really become easily usable until the age of 12 or so, right?
> Sorry, I'm not trying to be a thorn in your side, Jake. I'm just getting
> mixed signals. Some of my data is old, so I understand that things may have
> changed significantly.
No worries, you're not being a thorn. But yes, much has changed (perhaps
evolved is a better word). We have been working on this project for 3+
years, and as anyone who develops software knows, you have to be flexible in
your process. If you try to stick too stringently to your original goals and
objectives, then you will probably end up with something you don't like.
Over 3+ years, we learned what would work and what wouldn't technically. We
tested over and over with kids to see what they were capable of, and more
importantly, interested in doing. We dealt with legal and business issues.
And on and on...
<snip some good stuff>
> Anyway. I didn't sign an NDA back then, so I wasn't able to get very many
> details...only what was volunteered by Brad. I've kept silent on this since
> Nov 2000 out of respect for the fact that this project wasn't public, but now
> that the LXF file format project and DD is announced publicly, I think it
> would be great if we could all talk about our concerns publicly, for those
> of us who have concerns.
I can understand that desire, but please understand that there are MANY
issues at stake here. This is a huge leap forward for our business, and we
have to make sure that the company overall is comfortable with what we are
doing, and that we aren't committing business hari kari. That being said, we
are doing our best to get some discussion going so that we can hear concerns
and respond. Like this!
> Whether or not LXF is designed to "compete" with LDraw isn't really something
> that worries me... What worries me is wondering what life will be like in a
> world where LXF files can only be manipulated via an SDK, and where we won't
> be able to create our own parts in LXF format if LEGO doesn't provide all the
> parts.
More info on this tomorrow when I can get feedback from better informed
colleagues. But hey, in (almost) 3 years working with the community, have I
ever presented something that doesn't turn out good for the community in the
end? Try not to worry too much. Not yet anyway! ;)
> I see at least one way that LEGO benefits from having tools like MLCAD support
> the LXF format, but if the LCAD community is not in the target market for this
> product, what does the LCAD community gain by supporting the LXF format? I'm
> worried that all the good LCAD developers will, two years down the road, be
> bound by NDA and restricted somewhat in freedom of movement. For example,
> what if LEGO has come up with some totally ingenious method for encoding
> part connections, and that method is covered under NDA? It would hard for
> the community to implement the same method in LDraw format or some successor
> of it.
First, the NDA issues. The NDA is in place for one reason alone: Legal
issues that are not yet resolved. Once those are finalized, the NDAs go away.
Now, that being said, take the NDA discussion out of your statement above
and you have your answer as to why the community would support LXF... we can
all share in the work, and if LEGO comes up with "some totally ingenious
method for encoding part connections", it's not just ours. It's your too.
> I'd love to be wrong, though. But part of my job is to be skeptical. :-)
It is? Sounds like an interesting job! Do you get dental with that? :)
> > As they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> > building tools.
>
> This sounds encouraging! :-) Do you mean that Digital Designer 1.0 is but
> the first in a sequence of ever-more-powerful and exciting software coming
> down the pike from LEGO? Do you think LEGO ever might release something as
> powerful as MLCAD?
I meant that they would graduate to the community developed tools.
<snip>
> I assume I won't need to pay a licensing fee to publish LXF files on the
> Internet.
Nope. We aren't creating the GIF format! :)
> > - Is the LXF format going to be open, will you publish it and will we be
> > able to extend it?
> > We will provide all of the necessary information in the SDK so that
> > independent developers can make their own tools that use LXF. However, as
> > many developers will tell you, it's good to try and manage the growth of a
> > format to some extent, so we would like to maintain the official list of
> > what the format includes.
>
> I understand that answer to mean that we will not be able to extend the
> format. How about the first half of the question, just so we understand
> 100% and can put speculation to rest. :-) Will LEGO be publishing any
> documentation on the file format itself? Will that documentation be freely
> available or will a person have to sign an NDA in order to obtain a copy of
> it?
Don't quote me quite yet on this one, but from what I understand, the
documentation will be available to all, and yes, you will be able to extend
the format. This is where I hope that the LDraw community comes together to
formalize. This will help make it much easier to extend, help to ensure
quality of the extension. We will need to be involved in this process at
first though. (The Adobe PostScript example was a good one from another post
in this thread).
Anyway, off to bed. More info tomorrow!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Development Manager - N. America
LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Jake McKee writes:
> More on this post tomorrow, but a couple of quick answers. By compete, I
> just meant that our DD software isn't meant to compete with, say MLCad. It
> is designed for use by kids around the age of 7 or 8. MLCad, I would assume,
> doesn't really become easily usable until the age of 12 or so, right?
I don't know if anyone's done an age study, but that sounds about right.
> [...]
> More info on this tomorrow when I can get feedback from better informed
> colleagues. But hey, in (almost) 3 years working with the community, have I
> ever presented something that doesn't turn out good for the community in the
> end?
Which end? ;-)
> [...]
> Now, that being said, take the NDA discussion out of your statement above
> and you have your answer as to why the community would support LXF... we can
> all share in the work, and if LEGO comes up with "some totally ingenious
> method for encoding part connections", it's not just ours. It's your too.
Is it mine in the sense that I can legally implement the same method in
another file format?
> > I'd love to be wrong, though. But part of my job is to be skeptical. :-)
> It is? Sounds like an interesting job!
Naturally, part of my job at LUGNET is to try to look out for the best
interests of LUGNET and its users. From a technical standpoint, I'm kind of
automatically skeptical of: (a) any binary file format, (b) any proprietary
file format, and (c) any file format with which patents are associated.
> Do you get dental with that? :)
Ya, helps with the knuckle sandwiches. :)
> > > As they learn, they would hopefully graduate to more complex powerful LEGO
> > > building tools.
> > This sounds encouraging! :-) Do you mean that Digital Designer 1.0 is but
> > the first in a sequence of ever-more-powerful and exciting software coming
> > down the pike from LEGO? Do you think LEGO ever might release something as
> > powerful as MLCAD?
> I meant that they would graduate to the community developed tools.
Then I imagine LEGO is planning to provide links to these tools from the
lego.com website, so that these kids could find them as they learn and
graduate to more complex demands. This in itself may be the incentive for
tool authors to support the LXF format.
I expect we'll see a press release this summer touting the fact that AFOLs
have embraced the LXF format?
> Don't quote me quite yet on this one, but from what I understand, the
> documentation will be available to all, and yes, you will be able to extend
> the format.
A question for your colleagues: Is it a tagged file format then? (Like
TIFF images, TrueType font files, and ESRI map files -- these are examples
of tagged file formats.)
Will the LXF file format be binary or text-based?
Will the documentation be complete enough that I can write, say, a C program
that converts LDraw parts into LXF parts? Or if I want to convert LDraw to
LXF, am I going to *have to* use the SDK? I guess what I'm asking is, will
the documentation be complete enough that no one will bother reverse
engineering the file format? I'd love this answer to be "yes," because it
means that someone is likely to write open-source command-line-based
conversion utilities in C or Python or Perl, which would be my preferred
method of use on a server.
> This is where I hope that the LDraw community comes together to
> formalize. This will help make it much easier to extend, help to ensure
> quality of the extension. We will need to be involved in this process at
> first though. (The Adobe PostScript example was a good one from another post
> in this thread).
I'm looking forward to following these discussions.
I believe one of the main reasons that the Ogg Vorbis file format was
created is because the MP3 file format is mired by patents. Similarly, one
of the (many) reasons the PNG file format was created is because the GIF
file format is (or was) mired by patents.
I don't know if the patent referred to here:
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=8622
covers or restricts use of the LXF format or not... but if it does, then one
thing worth being aware of is that, historically, the geek community tends
to go around roadblocks like these by inventing altogether better and more
open file formats from scratch. MP3 and GIF had a huge advantage over Ogg
and PNG because they were there first and had time to become well
entrenched. LXF, on the other hand, is the newcomer, where LDraw -- the
open file format -- is well entrenched.
--Todd
|
|
| |
In lugnet.cad, Erik Olson writes:
> In my opinion, what killed the community's enthusiuasm for working with LEGO
> was LEGO's intention to patent the file format (and complicate it to do so.)
That's raises an interesting moral and ethical dilemma: Is it morally
acceptable to support the LXF format? Do you think anyone will boycott it?
> Since then, LEGO has obtained a government monopoly on CAD that is so broad,
> it could even be construed to cover LDRAW (if not for the obvious fact that
> LDRAW is prior art, aside from the lack of documentation of that fact.)
Aren't millions of copies of USENET articles dating back to 1994-5
documentation enough?
> At the least, no one can know where they stand without hiring a lawyer.
> Since we are writing code for free, that's not really in the cards.
Hiring a lawyer for this might be a good use of LDraw.org funds. I'll
personally pledge to donate $100 USD toward LDraw.org hiring a patent lawyer
to look for potential issues if someone is serious enough to follow through
with it.
> For this reason, it is necessary for LEGO to freely license its
> recently-acquired "intellectual property" (I emphasize the dubious nature of
> software patents) if it wants something in return, i.e. that we all work
> with LEGO for free. Anything less will leave uncertainty, fear and doubt.
I agree.
> The matter will probably never be clear. I doubt Compaq will license its
> software patents for virtual LEGO.
Compaq (HP?) owns software patents on virtual LEGO???
--Todd
|
|
|
