.

Review

Meeting Twelve

Lesson:

1) 3D Printing

2) Open discussion on project presentation.

3) The Open Quadrangle - Open Source + Open Standards + Open Data + Open Hardware

==============================================================================

a) Linus's comments to gplv3 - http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223

and how it is reported - http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/linux_creator_c.html

b) issues with the proposed OOXML standard - http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/07/formula-for-failure.html

This is a review class. Please bring your questions (or post them here) so that we can get them all answered.

.

Resources:

Download: Additional presentation material to explain Web 2.0, Open Standards and Virtualization

.

Questions:

1. AJAX and DHTML

There is also a webpage programming technology called DHTML (Dynamic HTML), which allowed more interactivity than just plain HTML. I understood it to be a technology that allowed static websites (like those Web 1.0 "brochure" sites) to become more dynamic and interactive.

Dynamic HTML was the use of Javascript & (X)HTML.

To comapare with AJAX, which is Asynchronous Javascript & XML.

I'd like to ask

- What exactly is AJAX? A web programming language?

- Is it in anyway similar to DHTML?

- Is it like a step further from DHTML? ie, HTML > DHTML > AJAX?

2. The word "License" vs "Patent"

If anyone (eg, Company A) wanted to use MP3 encoding, they would have to pay the Fraunhofer institute. This is because the MP3 technology is patented, is that correct?

The words "licensed" and "patented" often appear together.

But is licensed software = patented software?

And, just needed to clarify if I understand the word "license" right. Is it correct to say that:

"Company A licensed Fraunhofer Instititue to use the MP3 technology."

Or should it be:

"Fraunhofer Institute licensed Company A to use the MP3 technology."

3. RAND. Good for licensing. But still not good enough for FLOSS?

Just to ask, when we studied "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory", our understanding of it was to be applied to licensing (and patents?). RAND is good to practice when it comes to defining licenses, because it is good and fair for licenses to have reasonable royalites and non-discriminatory distribution.

I understand that RAND is something that proprietary licenses should practice, because it prevents license exploitation. But am I right to say that, RAND is still not good enough for FLOSS?

Because:

- The Non-Discriminatory part of RAND is okay, because FLOSS also is about non-discrimination.

- But, the Reasonable part of RAND is not okay. Because FLOSS cannot adopt anything that requires royalties - no matter how reasonable the royalties are. (Open Standards point 3 - No Royalties)

(Link: OSI complaint against W3C's RAND policy - http://opensource.org/pressreleases/w3c.php)

Cable News Network

Previous - Meeting Eleven

Next - Home