Subject:
|
Re: Ebrace and Extend (was Re: Non-commercial clause)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Jun 2004 20:26:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3141 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Dan Boger wrote:
> 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.
Understood.
> Of course that we would always want
> the LDraw format to be the most advanced, most useful format there is.
Agreed.
> But that doesn't mean we shouldn't put something in the license that
> might help achieve that goal.
As long as people understand the trade-offs. Adding redistribution
restriction clauses is tricky and hard to get right. Frequently people
can work around them.
> > 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.
It is quite possible, although I doubt that it is possible to craft a
redistribution restriction clause that will successfully prevent someone
from keeping their part information additions to themselves. If the additional
part information is kept is separate files (easily accomplished), there is
no requirement to return the additions to the LDraw.Org community.
Any redistribution restriction clause that prevents people from storing
additional part information in separate files is probably going to be so
restrictive, that legitimate uses of the part library will be precluded.
For fun, try crafting such a redistribution restriction clause; I think
you'll find it remarkably difficult.
> > > 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?
Your explaination is much clearer.
I totally agree with you. The standards committee is not required to
come up with innovation. There job is to vet any innovation that
comes along from the community as whole and try to integrate it in
the most sensible fashion possible.
Ultimately it is the LDraw community that has to work as a whole
to ensure that the LDraw standards remain relevant.
-Wayne
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
