NAF still Banned (on LL) ?

[Dlinny_Lag]

8 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

ou are arguing that copying source code is the only thing protected.

As usual, you skipped some text. Please, read again the section about data structures.

[Stormer]

13 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

So, your idea is that when companies reach a certain size and profit, all of their employees always follow the law?

Spoken like a true person with no real job experience and responsibilities. Just stating the obvious...

 

Just had to poke, I'm on my way out now

Edited January 5 by Stormer

[dagobaking]

8 minutes ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

As usual, you skipped some text. Please, read again the section about data structures.

 

You're right. Your post is a little more substantial than others. But, I feel that I've already answered all those points and am getting tired of repeating myself.

 

Also, I'm not sure how you can make these statements about the source code comparison when you don't have both source codes to look at.

[dagobaking]

6 minutes ago, Stormer said:

Spoken like a true person with no real job experience and responsibilities. Just stating the obvious...

 

Just had to poke, I'm on my way out now

 

You think that I have no real job experience or responsibilities?

[Yannis Valentine]

Just now, dagobaking said:

 

You think that I have no real job experience or responsibilities?

You have been here all day

[dagobaking]

1 minute ago, Yannis Valentine said:

You have been here all day

 

Well. Case closed!

[Dlinny_Lag]

1 minute ago, dagobaking said:

Also, I'm not sure how you can make these statements about the source code comparison when you don't have both source codes to look at.

It is not my business to prove similarity/non-similarity. I have no rights to publish detailed results, even if I will do this.

I just shared my thoughts based on my personal experience of analysis NAF and AAF code and documentation.

I do not see any chances for you to prove that anything related to code "was stolen" or code copyrights was infringed.

 

The only thing that can be debated - similar data structure. Not identical, but similar. And in most cases this similarity caused by domain and game engine restrictions.

I don't think that you will be able to win in a court with that weak position.

 

Actually, I do not care about the results of this conflict. NAF will alive in any case, and it is enough for me.

The actual reason why I saying all that - LL administration behavior. I hope they will found a solution to keep both AAF and NAF on LL.

[dagobaking]

1 minute ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

It is not my business to prove similarity/non-similarity. I have no rights to publish detailed results, even if I will do this.

I just shared my thoughts based on my personal experience of analysis NAF and AAF code and documentation.

I do not see any chances for you to prove that anything related to code "was stolen" or code copyrights was infringed.

 

The only thing that can be debated - similar data structure. Not identical, but similar. And in most cases this similarity caused by domain and game engine restrictions.

I don't think that you will be able to win in a court with that weak position.

 

Actually, I do not care about the results of this conflict. NAF will alive in any case, and it is enough for me.

The actual reason why I saying all that - LL administration behavior. I hope they will found a solution to keep both AAF and NAF on LL.

 

You just prove my point about the SnapDragon group.

 

Most (not all) of you are simply interested in a mod-related outcome. You start there and work your way backward to find some argument for why your mod-outcome might be realized.

 

That is a breakdown of principle. And I believe it's damaging to the modding community at large. I think it's caused primarily by the introduction of discord. That has divided the community into a bunch of self-interested tribes. Instead of working together on common ground under common principles, users sit in echo chambers and convince each other of their righteousness.

 

I think that is exactly the type of trend that LL should seek to stand against. Same thing happened with OSA and the OSTim discord. And they drove away one of the best mod authors Skyrim ever had.

[Stormer]

12 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

You think that I have no real job experience or responsibilities?

Obviously by implying, that once a company is "big enough" people go out of their way to do illegal activities because their "moral compass" compels them to. That is not how it works. Nobody would risk their job/income/family/reputation just for the hell of it, or because they personally think somebody is "within the right" without any actual proof. This is delusional. Real people don't behave like that. 

 

I wont describe how you personally strike me, but your arguments and how you behave.

 

You are somebody who got lucky, and then slacked. Then somebody else picked up your slack and here you are throwing insults and half-truths that fit your narrative to hold onto that sweet high.

 

Please get over yourself, as it is proven you're not the one with big-brain here. Let others improve something you clearly given upon and have no rights to (BIG majority of NAF is original work).

[Dlinny_Lag]

39 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

That is a breakdown of principle.

Note. Your principle. Not mine.

 

39 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

And I believe it's damaging to the modding community at large.

I don't think that interest of gamers/modders in mods can be a reason of this damage.

I belive that community damaged by LL administration behavior. They was not able to find a solution of the conflict to keep both mods on the site. One of the mods was banned with no explanation what rule(s) actually violated. People just started to speculate. The "Snapdragon group" was created after administration's decisions and actions against Snapdragon's work. 

 

39 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

Instead of working together on common ground under common principles

Once again, your principles? As I remember Snapdragon was pretty interested in collaboration. 

Edited January 6 by Dlinny_Lag

[gegging]

Snapdragon should just tear out any AAF compatibility, mainly the "contentious" xml-animation part and be done with this if that is the only problem.

Fallout 4 animations for AAF are spotty due to different tech(genital bones, physics etc) getting added over the years, lot of them dead silent(no moans) with a dead thousand cock stare anyway. More respect for Ulberto and others for trying to patch them up the best they could.

Not that Dago or Snap can do anything about that. That lies on animators new and old getting back into Fallout4's modding scene to (re)do animations but still.

[dagobaking]

4 hours ago, Stormer said:

Obviously by implying, that once a company is "big enough" people go out of their way to do illegal activities because their "moral compass" compels them to. That is not how it works. Nobody would risk their job/income/family/reputation just for the hell of it, or because they personally think somebody is "within the right" without any actual proof. This is delusional. Real people don't behave like that. 

 

I wont describe how you personally strike me, but your arguments and how you behave.

 

You are somebody who got lucky, and then slacked. Then somebody else picked up your slack and here you are throwing insults and half-truths that fit your narrative to hold onto that sweet high.

 

Please get over yourself, as it is proven you're not the one with big-brain here. Let others improve something you clearly given upon and have no rights to (BIG majority of NAF is original work).

 

I'm going to ignore your various insults for now, pending LL consideration.

 

There are countless examples of people with good jobs either not knowing what the law actually is, breaking it on purpose or gambling that the other person won't do anything about it. If you think I'm mistaken about this, I think it means that it's you who is the inexperienced one here.

 

Its not up to you whether or not I have rights to my own work, whether I keep working on it or not. Luck had nothing to do with it. Those in the community that worked with me, including a large majority of the content mod authors saw how much work was put into it. For a long time, the most common AAF complaint was that I updated too often.

 

4 hours ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

Note. Your principle. Not mine.

 

I don't think that interest of gamers/modders in mods can be a reason of this damage.

I belive that community damaged by LL administration behavior. They was not able to find a solution of the conflict to keep both mods on the site. One of the mods was banned with no explanation what rule(s) actually violated. People just started to speculate. The "Snapdragon group" was created after administration's decisions and actions against Snapdragon's work. 

 

Once again, your principles? As I remember Snapdragon was pretty interested in collaboration. 

 

Right. My principle is that the community is more functional when mod author rights are respected and upheld by portal administrators. Your principle is that you dont care about mod author rights if they dont give you what you think you need to put together the perfect mod build.

 

I don't know if you are just guessing and being wrong or if SnapDragon or someone else is misleading you. But, your description of events is wrong. LL was very clear with SnapDragon. He was the one who threw a tantrum, name-called and stormed away.

 

If SnapDragon was interested in bigger collaboration he did not express that interest to me. The closest thing to that was that he made the animation sync mod and asked me what to do with it. I didn't want to make a new third party dependency for that just to avoid the support issues. But, I applauded the work and we settled on an optional install arrangement. In other words, the one time he did collaborate, I worked with him and was nice about it. Had he had bigger ideas I would have engaged with them also.

 

2 hours ago, gegging said:

Snapdragon should just tear out any AAF compatibility, mainly the "contentious" xml-animation part and be done with this if that is the only problem.

 

Thank you. Yes. The amount of histrionics people are going through to avoid this has become ridiculous. It would not be the end of the world for SnapDragon to just make his own system and anyone interested can start building mods for that. That change probably could have been completed by now. Just in the time I spent responding to people today I could have added 3-4 more custom XML types.

 

Frankly, the fact that people are flipping out so much to avoid this is just more evidence of my point about the SnapDragon group. They aren't upset by some moral violation, untruth or incorrect application of copyright. They simply want to perfect the adultification of a video game. And they think that their personal opinion about which mod features do that best should over-rule any and every other consideration on earth, moral or otherwise. Some of these people would probably sacrifice peace in the middle east in order to get the NAF they dream of.

Drink some coffee. Take a cold shower. Spend 10 minutes at bed time wondering if you really are prioritizing your fantasies over other peoples rights and efforts.

[TheBottomhoodofSteel]

And there you have it. Everything I said pages ago being proven... 

Honestly people who support this entitled behavior and attitudes on display are creating the community they deserve by treating authors as expendable garbage. It's funny and depressing how people will get it in their head that they're owed the immutable right to rip off and alter other people's works irregardless of the author's say because they think they're owed mods. 

This kind of behavior isn't gonna really do anything but drive off any talent outside of the few clout chasers who you'll eventually turn on when they inevitably don't give you everything you want. 

 

Edited January 6 by TheBottomhoodofSteel

[DoctaSax]

5 hours ago, Stormer said:

You are somebody who got lucky, and then slacked. Then somebody else picked up your slack and here you are throwing insults and half-truths that fit your narrative to hold onto that sweet high.

Please get over yourself, as it is proven you're not the one with big-brain here. Let others improve something you clearly given upon and have no rights to (BIG majority of NAF is original work).

 

Nobody here punches a clock or is obliged to put in any amount of work in order to maintain moral, let alone legal, ownership of what they've made. Suggesting otherwise is against everything LL stands for.

 

 

[Dlinny_Lag]

7 hours ago, dagobaking said:

Your principle is that you dont care about mod author rights if they dont give you what you think you need to put together the perfect mod build.

Wow. I didn't think your are a telepathist... well, bad telepathist. It is not about me.

 

7 hours ago, dagobaking said:

My principle is that the community is more functional when mod author rights are respected and upheld by portal administrators.

I would sign it. Really.

 

Just a reminder of what happened:

1) You claimed that your rights was disrespected by Snapdragon. Just a claim, without hard evidence.

2) People that supports you (well, "Dagoba group") started to blame Snapdragon.

3) LL administration banned Snapdragon's work.

4) Community did not get explanation about reasons of ban of the work that made people so exciting.

5) People started to speculate, blaming and so on.

6) People massively joined Snapdragon's discord and created "Snapdragon group"

7) LL administration restores Snapdragon's work on LL for a bout 1 day

8) This thread created where LL adminstration leaved a comment about new ban. LL administration did not explain the reson of the new ban. LL administration just moved responsibility to mod authors. You and Snapdragon. But ban remain.

 

Now, lets go to the problem - LL administration actions violated Snapdragon's rights. And many people don't accept ban without a good explanation.

Yes, Snapdragon has the rights to publish his original work. And this work remain original until opposite is proven.

 

Yes, your right ends where the right of others begin.

And I can see the signs that you just ignores others rights while keeping your rights under LL administration protection.

 

Some thoughts:

You said about

16 hours ago, dagobaking said:

Western World

And this "Western World" borns an ugly child - cancel culture. One of the most important aspect of wрich - violating people rights with just claim, with no evidence.

 

I hate this cancel culture, but I can see its ugly aspect here, on LL.

And I suppose it is the real reason of community damage - people wants equity in rights, but they do not get it on LL.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6 by Dlinny_Lag

[sen4mi]

On 1/4/2024 at 6:12 PM, dagobaking said:

You keep trying to hide behind this idea that NAF is merely "XML Compatible". That is incredibly dishonest and misleading. NAF is designed to work specifically with XML files IN A STRUCTURE THAT IS PROPRIETARY TO AND PART OF AAF. There is no way to utilize "the same files" without copying the original work I created.

 

https://www.imaginelawblog.com/google-v-oracle-new-supreme-court-precedent-on-fair-use-of-software-code/ suggests that that argument would not fly in a USA court.

 

That said, I am not familiar with British law and precedent on this subject.

[mrwiseman]

5 hours ago, dagobaking said:

Thank you. Yes. The amount of histrionics people are going through to avoid this has become ridiculous. It would not be the end of the world for SnapDragon to just make his own system and anyone interested can start building mods for that. That change probably could have been completed by now. Just in the time I spent responding to people today I could have added 3-4 more custom XML types.

Seem absurd, but you are right, XML schema is protected by copyright as a literary work. 
Putting this aside, you make an interesting point about the state and expectations about FO4 modding (not all animations need to be sex suff, just most of them).
AAF is a labor of love, but it is a dependencies hell and Papyrus is slow and limited by the exposed API from others mods.
Just making this working, deserve respect.
What would a new format implied for old and new mods ?
Everybody or nobody move to the new shiny format. AAF or NAF, there can be only one.
Or we will have a major one and a fringe one, like CBBE and FG.
So, discords or/and incompatibilities.
If a new format is really needed ( custom types you mentioned ), is there an other place than LL for developers to put theirs heads together ?
A survey of the communities needs ( pun intended ), from that establishing a base standard, easily extendable with proprietary extensions.
So AAF and NAF could have specific features ( as their implementation is completely different ) but an overall compatibility.

[Dlinny_Lag]

6 minutes ago, mrwiseman said:

AAF or NAF, there can be only one.

I can't agree.

AAF and NAF has a different set of features (even if they has similarities). Dying of one of them will result in the loss of features that people wants.

Be sure, AAF and NAF may work at same time and gamers may get game experience utilizing both of them simultaneously.

[gegging]

Fallout 4 needs animators in general, besides the hoplophiles. But the money clearly isn't there compared to Skyrim.

[McAztec]

If we're gonna throw the law around might as well add actual sources with precedent:

 

https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v32/32HarvJLTech235.pdf

 

At the end of page 9 and beginning of page 10 (PDF count) there's a part about the merger doctrine and fair use for interoperability. When you create an open source counterpart to something that exists you most certainly CAN use the same structure for interoperability. This interpretation has been confirmed by an actual lawyer, so the XML, standards, formats, API arguments fall flat.

 

As for stolen code, that can easily be proved since NAF is open source, but it hasn't afaik.

[dagobaking]

5 hours ago, Dlinny_Lag said:

1) You claimed that your rights was disrespected by Snapdragon. Just a claim, without hard evidence.

 

Everything else you write fails on this point. You guys keep insisting that whether or not infringement occurred depends on me "showing proof" of some identical code. I have proven, over and over, that this is not what the law is. Look up the Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison test.

 

You dismiss my factual arguments as "just your opinion". The problem for you, is that if you read how the law works, opinion over whether something is substantially similar is EXACTLY HOW THE LAW WORKS. A judge and jury would examine the details of the products NOT JUST INCLUDING THE SOURCE CODE and they would hand down a literal OPINION on whether or not it is a copy.

 

And lets just break this down again in another way:

 

#A. A NORMAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: A person has an original idea for an app that nobody has done. They build it out based on their own imagination and skills without any reference to the exact way a pre-existing app works. Other people use the first version, give feedback, and the app is revised over time.

 

#B. THE PROCESS SNAPDRAGON FOLLOWED: He did not have an original idea. Instead, he liked my ideas in AAF. He even admits it in his mod descriptions ("inspired by AAF"). Instead of going through his original idea to create something new he had to go through my XML API piece by piece and make C++ equivalents. There is no other way that would technically work. Let me repeat: In order to make NAF, SnapDragon had to look at the way AAF works IN VERY TECHNICAL AND SPECIFIC DETAIL and rule-by-rule make C++ equivalents.

 

#C THE PROCESS OF TRANSLATING "The Hunger Games" TO FRENCH: A writer does not have an original idea. But, they want The Hunger Games to reach French people and they want to add their own twist to the ending. So, word by word, they go through The Hunger Games in English and draft the same story in French. And then at the end they add their own chapter.

 

I am 100% confident that any judge or impartial jury would reach the same conclusions as me:

 

ONE: #B is in fact what SnapDragon did. The evidence is obvious by looking at the way NAF works and even just reading his own descriptions.

 

TWO: #B is more similar to #C than #A. In other words, what SnapDragon did is called copying and it infringes on my rights.

 

---

 

So, you really have no point about SnapDragon not being treated equally. He was treated in a specific way because he did something different than most mod authors. He engaged in #B above instead of #A.

 

 

4 hours ago, sen4mi said:

https://www.imaginelawblog.com/google-v-oracle-new-supreme-court-precedent-on-fair-use-of-software-code/ suggests that that argument would not fly in a USA court.

 

I addressed this earlier in the thread. Google v Oracle involved the API for an entire language that was used on a huge number of applications in different industries. That is not remotely comparable to a single API made specifically for one application.

 

4 hours ago, mrwiseman said:

Seem absurd, but you are right, XML schema is protected by copyright as a literary work. 
Putting this aside, you make an interesting point about the state and expectations about FO4 modding (not all animations need to be sex suff, just most of them).
AAF is a labor of love, but it is a dependencies hell and Papyrus is slow and limited by the exposed API from others mods.
Just making this working, deserve respect.
What would a new format implied for old and new mods ?
Everybody or nobody move to the new shiny format. AAF or NAF, there can be only one.
Or we will have a major one and a fringe one, like CBBE and FG.
So, discords or/and incompatibilities.
If a new format is really needed ( custom types you mentioned ), is there an other place than LL for developers to put theirs heads together ?
A survey of the communities needs ( pun intended ), from that establishing a base standard, easily extendable with proprietary extensions.
So AAF and NAF could have specific features ( as their implementation is completely different ) but an overall compatibility.

 

You also raise some interesting points and questions. These are some pretty big subjects that probably deserve their own threads.

 

The quick answers:

 

By "dependency hell" I think you refer to the way multiple content mods can create problems in the XML. Yes. That was an unexpected problem. People were more comfortable posting random XML all over the place than I expected. I thought that there would be more teamwork between mod authors to condense XML down to only being attached to very specific mod types (ie. race XML only being with a custom race, etc.). To be honest, I'm not sure what solution there is for that that wouldn't involve making AAF less flexible. The solution really is: more cooperation between mod authors. But, that is difficult to control or predict.

 

It's important to note, imo, in context of this thread, that NAF doesn't change the "dependency hell" of AAF at all. It copies the way XML is used. So, all of those same issues affect NAF exactly the same.

 

I think there is room for multiple frameworks in FO4. There is in Skyrim. There is SexLab, OSA, OStim and probably others I don't remember. There is no reason why SnapDragon can't just make his own and recruit people to build content mods for it. Or, he can make content mods to compliment it like CE0 did in Skyrim. Its proven territory that new animation frameworks can be added after others were already around.

 

Would that be ideal for the user? Up to opinion. I still do think that ideally, SnapDragon would have collaborated to begin with. Many mod authors dont like to collaborate and work together on things. I'm not like that. I welcome collaboration. Especially if it involves authors with different code skills than me. AAF already benefits from C++ contributions from other coders. In an ideal world, in my opinion, SnapDragon helping in that same way would be best for the users.

 

In fact, some of the features of C++ in NAF were already in the works for AAF. We were in the process of moving slow parts of Papyrus into C++ to speed things up. Quite a lot of that has already been done. If/when the other parts of that get released I can't say as it depends on help from a team and everyone has a lot going on.

 

Another alternative is, as you theorize, a version of NAF that doesn't infringe on AAF but compliments it. Yes. It could be changed to focus more on complimentary features and they could hook into each other in ways. I wouldn't object to that. Though, I have to say that I don't think the animation studio was a very good idea. Professional 3D platforms like Blender and 3DSMax have too many sophisticated tools that animators rely on to be replicated in-game. The outcome, in my opinion, of animation studio would just be a lot of sub-par animations and also in some odd format.

 

The animation problem is partially why AAF hasn't been updated lately. Instead of coding, I've been spending my time learning Blender to build an FO4 animation kit for Blender. I'm actually pretty far along with it now. It includes a scripted process for publishing animations because the current process is very tricky to figure out and I think blocks a lot of animators. I am now just in the bells and whistles phase of it and hope to be done soon.

 

RE: discord and community changes. Big subject. I don't see why an existing platform like LL couldn't work just like it did in the earlier days of Skyrim. The obstacle is human tendency to crowd together on discord servers (my own included). I think the question deserves its own thread and discussion.

 

 

2 hours ago, gegging said:

Fallout 4 needs animators in general, besides the hoplophiles. But the money clearly isn't there compared to Skyrim.

 

Yes. And I think the block to animators is that the old version of 3DSMax needed isn't available any more and the Blender process works but is very tricky to make work in its current state. I'm working on a solution that packages that all together including with Rigify generated animation rigs in Blender. I'm in the final stages of it. I just want to add a custom publish script in Blender first. I'm hoping that will encourage people familiar with Blender to dive into FO4 more.

[dagobaking]

32 minutes ago, McAztec said:

If we're gonna throw the law around might as well add actual sources with precedent:

 

https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v32/32HarvJLTech235.pdf

 

At the end of page 9 and beginning of page 10 (PDF count) there's a part about the merger doctrine and fair use for interoperability. When you create an open source counterpart to something that exists you most certainly CAN use the same structure for interoperability. This interpretation has been confirmed by an actual lawyer, so the XML, standards, formats, API arguments fall flat.

 

As for stolen code, that can easily be proved since NAF is open source, but it hasn't afaik.

 

None of AAF, including the XML schema has ever been open source. So, the comparison you make does not work.

[McAztec]

9 minutes ago, dagobaking said:

 

None of AAF, including the XML schema has ever been open source. So, the comparison you make does not work.

 

The open-source part referred to NAF which is open-source. NAF is the open-source counterpart in question. Let me be more clear and directly quote the relevant part indicated earlier:

"Under the merger doctrine, a work is not copyright eligible when its expression has merged with an idea. In Lotus v. Borland, Borland released a spreadsheet program, Quattro, that used the same menu structure as Lotus’s spreadsheet program, Lotus 1-2-3. Borland copied Lotus’s menu structure so that Quattro could run user macros (i.e., programs) written for Lotus 1-2-3. The First Circuit held that the menu structure of Lotus 1-2-3 was an uncopyrightable method of operation (at least to the extent of Borland’s use), in part because copying the menu structure was the only way Quattro could be functionally interoperable with Lotus 1-2-3."

 

TL;DR: "the menu structure of Lotus 1-2-3 was an uncopyrightable method of operation [...] in part because copying the menu structure was the only way Quattro could be functionally interoperable with Lotus 1-2-3"

 

I hope the comparison and situation is now much more clear. Using the same data structure is allowed to ensure interoperability.

 

As an additional note XML is an open standard and the schema you use is literally documented publicly on your wiki with examples. That's as close to open source as the structure of a file based on an existing open standard can be.

[dagobaking]

1 minute ago, McAztec said:

 

The open-source part referred to NAF which is open-source. NAF is the open-source counterpart in question. Let me be more clear and directly quote the relevant part indicated earlier:

"Under the merger doctrine, a work is not copyright eligible when its expression has merged with an idea. In Lotus v. Borland, Borland released a spreadsheet program, Quattro, that used the same menu structure as Lotus’s spreadsheet program, Lotus 1-2-3. Borland copied Lotus’s menu structure so that Quattro could run user macros (i.e., programs) written for Lotus 1-2-3. The First Circuit held that the menu structure of Lotus 1-2-3 was an uncopyrightable method of operation (at least to the extent of Borland’s use), in part because copying the menu structure was the only way Quattro could be functionally interoperable with Lotus 1-2-3."

 

TL;DR: "the menu structure of Lotus 1-2-3 was an uncopyrightable method of operation [...] in part because copying the menu structure was the only way Quattro could be functionally interoperable with Lotus 1-2-3"

 

I hope the comparison and situation is now much more clear. Using the same data structure is allowed to ensure interoperability.

 

As an additional note XML is an open standard and the schema you use is literally documented publicly on your wiki with examples. That's as close to open source as the structure of a file based on an existing open standard can be.

 

No. Your argument is not clear and the white paper you cite does not seem to challenge my copyright claim.

 

What you seem to be arguing is that somebody can copy copyrighted work as long as they make it open source. Which obviously does not make any sense. Otherwise, we could all share Open Source Windows 11 that works exactly the same as Microsoft Windows 11.

 

[dagobaking]

5 minutes ago, McAztec said:

As an additional note XML is an open standard and the schema you use is literally documented publicly on your wiki with examples. That's as close to open source as the structure of a file based on an existing open standard can be.

 

This also does not make any sense.

 

"Open source" refers to specific kinds of licensing. Documenting how an API works does not render it open source.

 

XML itself is an open standard. But, SnapDragon's app doesn't just read any XML. It reads the exact structure that I designed.