Subject:
|
Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Sat, 5 Jun 2004 21:05:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3268 times
|
| |
|
|
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:14:26PM +0000, Wayne Gramlich wrote:
> (For those of you who do not know, GPL=Gnu Public License.) GPL is one
> strategy. I prefer an innovate over litigate strategy. The GPL is
> complex and in certain critical areas extremely vague. The GPL
> attempts to mandate innovation by requiring people to give back to the
> community.
I agree that GPL might not be the right license to use here - I was just
using it as an example of how the "extension" problem might be dealt
with, as far as the license goes. Of course that we would always want
the LDraw format to be the most advanced, most useful format there is.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't put something in the license that
might help achieve that goal.
> I think the better strategy is to have an active standards committee
> that ensures that the LDraw file format has always got the best
> features in it. For example, if the "embrace and extend" library has
> surface normals, and the standards committee adds surface normals to
> LDraw file format, which format will people write software for? the
> closed proprietary format or the open LDraw file format?
The format with the most data. Example:
You take all the ldraw parts, and release them in a close format of your
own. This format also supports connection types, and all the parts you
released now have that additional data included in them.
The LSC sees this, creates a way to embed the connection info in the DAT
format - but the whole library doesn't include all that info yet,
because each part has to be reviewed, resubmitted, etc, by the
community.
Do you really think software won't start supporting the commercial
format, since it allows them to include the new features? I'm not so
sure.
> > By definition, a breakthrough in the format cannot be forced by the
> > SC or anyone else. If you come up with the great idea, there's no
> > way the SC can force the format to have the same breakthrough, not
> > without your help.
>
> I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say here.
You can't force the LSC to innovate in ways no one has ever thought of.
The LSC is only 5 people (I think?), and there is just no way to force
all the new great ideas to come only to those 5 people. If a commercial
entity came up with something neat, the LDraw library would have to play
catch up - and that might take a while. In that time, any new software
written would have a pretty big incentive to support the commercial
format, in addition to LDraw's.
Repeat this cycle a few times, and the LDraw format might eventually be
abandoned, as just too primitive to support. Maybe as an "import only"
mode, but not as a working format.
Does that make more sense?
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
