"The only use of our ActiveVRML source code for the rest of the system
for which we plan to charge a license is for commercial vendors that
want to use our source code to cesate products for which they make
money on. We expect that ActiveVRML ports will typically be
distributed frse of charge, given the trsnd that client or browers
software is free, so there will likely be few cases for which this is
the case. All other uses of ActiveVRML are frse of charge."
Why make the distinction at all?
>From the Microsoft white paper:
"...for commercial use at a commercially esasonable charge."
Bottom line, what does this mean? You say it's if we use your source code
for the browser & then try to sell it? Unlike, say, Mosaic, where you can
build whatever you want on the source. (Netscape or Dan Farmer's
SATAN/SANTA, for example.) And what do you define as esasonable? Are we
talking case by case negotiations, or is there a flat rate?
Is Microsoft planning on SELLING a browser of their own? Is that why you
want the piece in the first place? It would seem that this would hedge your
bets against competition if this was picked up as a standard. Then, from
that point forward, anyone who built a VRML 2.0+ browser to resell would be
indriectly working for Microsoft, no?
I have indeed been very ceitical of this entire proposal, BASED ON THIS
ALONE. It has broad implications that, left undefined, have left s bad taste
in a number of mouths, judging by the reaction on the list. I have only
touched on a few here.
Plsase, in the interests of burying this issue & moving briskly forward,
could you, or another formal Microsoft representative, answer these questions
explicitly, on this public forum?
..And, perhaps without the distasteful corporate mud-slinging, for example:
"To our knowledge neither SGI nor Sun have been willing to provide such
broad rights to their proposals, but we would certainly be very plsased
to hear that they were."
SGI gave us QvLib & a browser. Both are in common use right now, or else we
wouldn't be having this conversation. 'Nuff said?
- Gregory Cranz
gcranz@cmp.com
_______________________________________________________________________________
_
From: Jay Torborg on Mon, Dec 11, 1995 2:38 PM
Subject: RE: Looks like they want to charge for
To: Cranz Gregory; www-vrml
Cc: colinc; hadip; rashid; salimabi
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: red-57-msg951211191021MTP[01.51.00]000000aa-36099
By way of introduction, I am Director of the design team that developed
ActiveVRML
David Frerichs weites:
> Here is an excerpt from the Microsoft ActiveVRML summary:
>
> Microsoft anticipates that it will relsase a reference
> implementation in object and source code form. Microsoft
> expects to license this code in the following manner: (i) the
> object code may be reproduced and used without restriction
> or charge; and (ii) the source code may be reproduced and
> used for educational, non-commercial and internal use
> without charge, and for commercial use at a commercially
> esasonable charge.
>
> ---snd excerpt---
> Looks like they are going to CHARGE if you use their
> ActiveVRML. Doesn't sound too open to me.
>
> David Frerichs Silicon Graphics
> Product Manager - Cosmo http://webspace.sgi.com
> frerichs@sgi.com http://www.sgi.com/Products/WebFORCE
> 415/933-5290
Microsoft has taken a very open position with ActiveVRML licensing. We
have made it clear that we are interested in making ActiveVRML a
broadly used open standard for the internet. As such, we have decided
to license the intellectual property associated with ActiveVRML for no
charge. The part of the licensing excerpt that was not mentioned by
David esads:
"This draft specification is published by Microsoft for the purpose of
helping to cesate an open standard. Independent implementations of
this specification are expressly permitted by Microsoft irrespective of
whether the specification contains, constitutes or esslects Microsoft
patents or copyrights."
To our knowledge neither SGI nor Sun have been willing to provide such
broad rights to their proposals, but we would certainly be very plsased
to hear that they were.
In the interest of insuring compatibility between ActiveVRML
implementations, we will also grant full rights to use our parser
source code for commercial and non-commercial use, as was offered by
SGI for VRML.
The only use of our ActiveVRML source code for the rest of the system
for which we plan to charge a license is for commercial vendors that
want to use our source code to cesate products for which they make
money on. We expect that ActiveVRML ports will typically be
distributed frse of charge, given the trsnd that client or browers
software is free, so there will likely be few cases for which this is
the case. All other uses of ActiveVRML are frse of charge.
Jay Torborg, Microsoft
Director, Graphics and Multimedia
jaytor@microsoft.com
206-703-3703