|
|
|
|
> Thoughts?
Proprietary lock-in.
This phrase from Appendix A tells you all you need to know about the
patent licensing: "on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms".
If the FRAND patent model worked, the mobile phone and tablet industry
would be a happy garden of mutual innovation, rather than a dismal swamp
of litigation.
The broad exceptions in Item 3 of Option 2 tells you that anything you
create *will* be deemed infringing, because you'll be innovating in a
related field that's not covered by the FRAND license. The only question
will be whether you have enough money to make you a worthwhile target.
I. Am. Not. A. Lawyer.
--
Ed
softsolder.com
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
--
Ed
softsolder.com
|
|
|
I haven't read the 3MF format spec, but it sounds superficially a lot like AMF, with maybe a few additional features. AMF is also an XML based format, which means it is easily extensible. Microsoft could have used or extended AMF, but my experience with Microsoft and standards committees is that they don't like to play in other people's sandboxes. They generally want to own the sandbox.
We have a lot of Windows users, so it's possible that at some point, there could be user demand for the ability to import/export 3MF. Microsoft will want us to support this feature, in terms of their overall goals for 3MF, so it's unlikely that they would sue us for implementing 3MF import/export. Yes, I know it doesn't work that way for open source projects implementing audio/video codecs, but I think this is different. Microsoft wants to use 3D printer support as a new way to drive people to use Windows, and they won't succeed if they demand licensing fees from every open source project that tries to support their 3D printer interface. And I think they understand that.
I am also not a lawyer. _______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
|
|
Administrator
|
I didn’t read the spec either, but my earlier information on the topic tells me that Microsoft did indeed build their own sandbox, using an XML-based packaging format which includes support for DRM, to ensure that people having access to 3MF files cannot access the content if they don’t have the correct license.
Microsoft released the format spec under an NDA ca. 2 years ago, but I didn’t sign or look at it for obvious reasons.
Let’s see when the reference implementation arrives, and we get to know what Microsoft’s definition of “cross-platform code” is :)
-Marius
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
|
|
|
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:28 AM, doug moen < [hidden email]> wrote:
> I haven't read the 3MF format spec, but it sounds superficially a lot like
> AMF, with maybe a few additional features. AMF is also an XML based format,
> which means it is easily extensible. Microsoft could have used or extended
> AMF, but my experience with Microsoft and standards committees is that they
> don't like to play in other people's sandboxes. They generally want to own
> the sandbox.
I have zero interest in supporting a vendor-extended "standard".
If Microsoft wants to lead the pack, they have to open this up. Period.
>> The broad exceptions in Item 3 of Option 2 tells you that anything you
>> create *will* be deemed infringing, because you'll be innovating in a
>> related field that's not covered by the FRAND license. The only question
>> will be whether you have enough money to make you a worthwhile target.
Exactly.
>> I. Am. Not. A. Lawyer.
Ditto.
-ethan
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
|
|
|
> We have a lot of Windows users, so it's possible that at some point, there
> could be user demand for the ability to import/export 3MF. Microsoft will
> want us to support this feature, in terms of their overall goals for 3MF,
> so it's unlikely that they would sue us for implementing 3MF import/export.
Microsoft will sue or threaten to sue whoever they like for whatever
reasons they like if they calculate it benefits their "shareholder
value". It's not even to condemn them for it. They are US a corporation.
It is their duty to their shareholders to do so.
> Yes, I know it doesn't work that way for open source projects implementing
> audio/video codecs, but I think this is different. Microsoft wants to use
> 3D printer support as a new way to drive people to use Windows, and they
> won't succeed if they demand licensing fees from every open source project
> that tries to support their 3D printer interface. And I think they
> understand that.
Big US corporations also understand that if they get around to having some
proxy company sue people once the standard is well established they win.
> I am also not a lawyer.
I'm just a cynic but I would get close to a Microsoft "standard",
especially a FRAND one approximately the way you'd get close to someone
with ebola.
Alan
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
|
|
|
It's not FRAND. Option 2 is "RAND-RF (Royalty-Free)", which is different.
In the parent document it says "3MF members have agreed to make their necessary patent claims available for implementations of the 3MF Core Specification and 3MF Materials Specification on a royalty-free basis."
The wording you object to means basically something like this: "if your software already violated our patents, independent of 3MF, then adding 3MF support to your software doesn't eliminate the prior patent infringement".
I don't advocate living in fear of uknown patents. Refusing to implement 3MF because we don't like Microsoft is one thing, and could be a legitimate community decision. But I don't see that 3MF support would create any legal risk for us. The point of the royalty-free patent grant is to eliminate that risk, after all. _______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
|
|
|
FRAND, as you describe it, is option 1 of Appendix A. The option used by 3MF is option 2, which is royalty free.
FRAND is a minefield because you have to pay license fees for implementing the standard, and the negotiations over that have led to law suits, as described by your link. But 3MF uses a royalty-free model in which you don't pay license fees for implementing the standard. _______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
|
|
Administrator
|
My 2c worth is that we will need something to support multiple materials/colours real soon, colour printing is already a reality on Shapeways etc, and with things like the Diamond head, let alone multi-head printers now, will have demand for multi-stuff now.
Given AMF export is implemented in OpenSCAD and in slicers, should the focus be on implementing multi-stuff-ability in OpenSCAD using AMF, rather than expanding to other formats and still not be able to make multi-stuff?
Admin - email* me if you need anything,
or if I've done something stupid...
* click on my MichaelAtOz label, there is a link to email me.
Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; to the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work.
Obviously inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.
The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/ time is running out!
|
|
|
Thanks for summarizing what I’ve been mulling over in my head.
I’m going to comment+close the Issue with something to this effect.
Andrew.
> On May 1, 2015, at 11:29 PM, MichaelAtOz < [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> My 2c worth is that we will need something to support multiple
> materials/colours real soon, colour printing is already a reality on
> Shapeways etc, and with things like the Diamond head, let alone multi-head
> printers now, will have demand for multi-stuff now.
>
> Given AMF export is implemented in OpenSCAD and in slicers, should the focus
> be on implementing multi-stuff-ability in OpenSCAD using AMF, rather than
> expanding to other formats and still not be able to make multi-stuff?
>
>
>
> -----
> Unless specifically shown otherwise above, my contribution is in the Public Domain; To the extent possible under law, I have waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to this work. This work is published globally via the internet. :) Inclusion of works of previous authors is not included in the above.
>
> The TPP is no simple “trade agreement.” Fight it! http://www.ourfairdeal.org/> --
> View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/New-3MF-file-format-tp12525p12543.html> Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenSCAD mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
|
|
|
On 05/02/2015 05:29 AM, MichaelAtOz wrote:
> Given AMF export is implemented in OpenSCAD and in slicers, should the focus
> be on implementing multi-stuff-ability in OpenSCAD using AMF, rather than
> expanding to other formats and still not be able to make multi-stuff?
>
Right, I agree the functionality would be much more useful than just
another import/export format. But then I think the effort spent on a
simple exporter would be not too big, I guess the biggest thing is to
find a nice cross platform solution to read/write the ZIP file (which
would come in useful for AMF handling too).
Still, I guess the best strategy for now is to sit back, fetch some
popcorn and watch what happens :-).
ciao,
Torsten.
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
-- Torsten
|
|
|
A skim through http://bit.ly/1KqwpFU suggests that the "royalty-free patent license" requires a "conformant application" to be produced, and I have no doubt that "conformant" will require DRM, so that a 3MF derivative without DRM would be subject to lawsuits and monetization.
|
|
|
The DRM relevant features of the spec are all optional, the only required part is the 3D model. So I think a conformant implementation need not process any DRM.
I understand there is great suspicion of Microsoft, but in my reading 3MF is a genuinely open spec, there are no strings attached. It actually makes clear it is royalty free, unlike AMF. It also can be freely downloaded, unlike AMF which costs $49 and you have to agree to inspection of your premises and computer systems by a third party to ensure you are complying with the copyright (i.e. not made ANY copies), otherwise the agreement is cancelled and you must destroy all copies. Personally I find it a lot easier to implement 3MF than AMF. _______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
|
|
|
The only version of the AMF spec that I've studied is the 0.47 draft from this URL:
If there are substantive differences in the $49 version, I have no way of finding about them. The legal risks involved in obtaining the actual standard sound too high. If I create a context diff comparing 0.47 with 1.0, I'm breaking the law. On the other hand, most of the other people implementing AMF are probably also basing their implementation on V0.47, so whatever text happens to be in the pay version of the AMF standard probably doesn't matter all that much.
I agree that Microsoft has done a better job, in making their standard freely available and explicitly royalty free. _______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
|
|
|
Von: "doug moen" < [hidden email]>
> On the other hand, most of the other people implementing AMF are probably
> also basing their implementation on V0.47, so whatever text happens to be
> in the pay version of the AMF standard probably doesn't matter all that much.
>
Actually there are some details that are fairly important for interoperability
across different programs. In general the file structure is pretty well
explained in Wikipedia and most information (especially the XML schema is
freely available).
Also Hod Lipson, technical contact and ASTM F42 Task group chair is pretty
helpful and also answers specific questions in the google group. Unfortunately
he failed to convince others to make the specification freely available.
This is likey an ASTM/ISO issue and not related to the actual specification,
but still it's hugely annoying.
From what I know, both cura and slic3r implementations are not based on the
released spec version. Last time I looked, the netfabb implementation did
not follow the specification regarding the actual file storage when using
ZIPed format.
> On 27 May 2015 at 05:28, Bob Cousins < [hidden email][ [hidden email]]> wrote:
> > Personally I find it a lot easier to implement 3MF than AMF.
> >
I can't see much difference there and AMF is pretty trivial when ignoring
the curved triangles (where I'm still not convinced that's extremely useful,
especially due to the fixed 5 level recursion, but I might be wrong here
as I did not dig into the details).
And basic AMF support is already implemented, the export is included in
the release version. The restrictions are mainly coming from limitations
present in current OpenSCAD and are not related to AMF.
ciao,
Torsten.
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
-- Torsten
|
|
|
Digging out this thread as there is some good and some bad news :-)
The github project https://github.com/3MFConsortium/lib3mf looks promising
as it's providing the library with a 2-clause BSD license and it does
support compiling with GCC.
(Interesting note... the code is copyright by Netfabb / Microsoft)
That's the good news.
The bad news is, that the GCC part is missing some essential parts,
mainly the Reader and Writer classes. So currently it's basically just
the data model which would be usable (as far as I can tell after digging
a bit yesterday).
Still, that's a good start and hopefully the missing parts will
appear eventually.
ciao,
Torsten.
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
-- Torsten
|
|
Locked
