New 3MF file format
Hey Everyone,
I've created Issue #1331 (see
https://github.com/openscad/openscad/issues/1331) to gather info and
interest around this new file format being developed by Microsoft and
others:
Open Source examples (licenses tbd) will apparently be appearing via GitHub:
http://www.3mf.io/what-is-3mf/
--snip--
The code to read or write 3MF is available as open source: Microsoft’s
donated code reads STL/OBJ/3MF, writes 3MF, and can use Web Services for
model repair. The source code will be on Github and cross-platform code is
in development.
--end-snip--
...and apparently it'll be an open standard and will be relatively patent
unencumbered:
http://www.3mf.io/what-is-3mf/3mf-specification/
--snip--
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. For details, please review the Joint
Development Foundation Working Group Charter Appendix A, Patent Policy
Option 2, available at http://bit.ly/1KqwpFU.
--end-snip--
Thoughts?
Andrew.
--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/New-3MF-file-format-tp12525.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
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
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.
On 1 May 2015 at 10:50, Ed Nisley ed.nisley@pobox.com wrote:
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
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
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
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 11:28 AM, doug moen doug@moens.org 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
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
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.
On 1 May 2015 at 10:50, Ed Nisley ed.nisley@pobox.com wrote:
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
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
On 05/01/2015 04:16 PM, doug moen wrote:
It's not FRAND. Option 2 is "RAND-RF (Royalty-Free)", which is different.
Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory.
They can omit "Fair" from the acronym if they like, I suppose, but ...
Some background on why FRAND remains a minefield:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/02/amends-patent-policy.html
--
Ed
softsolder.com
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.
On 1 May 2015 at 16:55, Ed Nisley ed.nisley@pobox.com wrote:
On 05/01/2015 04:16 PM, doug moen wrote:
It's not FRAND. Option 2 is "RAND-RF (Royalty-Free)", which is different.
Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory.
They can omit "Fair" from the acronym if they like, I suppose, but ...
Some background on why FRAND remains a minefield:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/02/amends-patent-policy.html
--
Ed
softsolder.com
OpenSCAD mailing list
Discuss@lists.openscad.org
http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org
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.