>...what's "open" supposed to mean? That they give you everything
>for free?
No. Without a profit, there is no business. Business makes it
possible to get competitive evolving products at reasonable costs.
For the Internet user, Microsoft can provide such. For other markets,
companies with more experience in VR, 3D technologies and
marketing to the needs of those markets may have the upper hand.
Some portion of the rules of doing business in the other markets are
decided by policies set in forums other than this one.
>Although the "give most of it away" Internet business model scares
>the bejeesus out of me, we've got to remember that all profit-oriented
>companies will protect their property in this way.
Of course. This not a serious issue. The serious questions
concern the positioning of the language relative to VRML:
1. Who controls the development of ActiveVRML, or, again,
what is the Microsoft definition of "open standard"? If this
question is not answered here, it will be answered in
other forums or ActiveVRML will not be an accepted offering
in markets represented by those forums.
2. How can the invested members of the VRML community come
to an agreement on subsequent versions of VRML without a
formal and public process if events such as the Microsoft
announcement which challenge the efficacy of these agreements
continue?
3. Who organizes that process and how is it implemented?
The Microsoft language is substantial and attractive.
It's serious departure from the current versions of VRML cannot be
resolved on this list. That leaves the members of the VAG
and there is no certainty that agreement there will any longer
have binding importance.
If the VRML systems do not interoperate cleanly, the industry
will die here. If the language is controlled by a single vendor,
then it is of no use to other communities that depend on true
open standards to communicate. The answer at this time seems
to be that there will be multiple non-interoperable languages for
VRML behaviors. This will lead to the other markets choosing
another, perhaps equally non-interoperable solution that they
control in order to control the ownership of the information.
So the issue comes down, not to technical advantages, but control.
Is that acceptable? Is that inevitable? Who decides?
Len Bullard