FLARM's idea of licensing is for you to produce identical hardware to run their proprietary software on.[1] There is no standard, open or closed, to license and implement. This really doesn't have any bearing to the ISO standards writing process, except in how dissimilar it is.
As for the encryption, here's the IGC's views on the matter[2] "it is our opinion that the justifications for encryption cited by FLARM are weak, and that the actual motivations for encrypting the messages fall largely outside the technical realm." I think FLARM has done great things for gliding. I am proud to own a PowerFLARM, but they've overstepped the mark with encryption. [1] http://flarm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FLARM-System-Design-and-Compatibility.pdf [2]http://www.fai.org/downloads/igc/IGC_2016_Plenary_AX6_2_4 On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Justin Couch <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/03/2016 1:42 PM, Mark Newton wrote: > >> Protecting the text of a standard under copyright and making it >> purchasable, is not the same thing as making the standard unimplementable >> without paying license fees, and you know it. >> >> Reputable standards bodies insist on open royalty free patent licensing >> these days. The ones that don’t are slowly marginalizing themselves. >> > > Incorrect. I've been involved in the ISO standards writing process for > just over 20 years now - including part of the MPEG 4 and 7 standards, so I > know it inside out. Reputable standards bodies like ISO have individual IP > policy for every specification or group. It is not blanket across the > organisation. In the case of MPEG, there is a large patent body pool called > MPEG-LA. You cannot implement an open standard without paying license fees > for the patents behind. MPEG is very far from being an isolated incident at > ISO. There are other completely open standards such as SEDRIS or X3D that > require contributors to license any contributed patents for zero cost to > all implementors. There's, of course, others in between. > > > I can write an MPEG implementation which interoperates with everyone >> else’s MPEG streams and distribute it in competition with other MPEG >> implementations, by following the text of the standard. >> > > No you can't. You can try, but they will come after you, particularly if > you write an encoder. That's why alternates like Ogg guys started out - to > completely avoid the patents. > > > -- > Justin Couch http://www.vlc.com.au/ > Java 3D Graphics Information http://www.j3d.org/ > LinkedIn http://au.linkedin.com/in/justincouch/ > G+ WetMorgoth > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > "Look through the lens, and the light breaks down into many lights. > Turn it or move it, and a new set of arrangements appears... is it > a single light or many lights, lights that one must know how to > distinguish, recognise and appreciate? Is it one light with many > frames or one frame for many lights?" -Subcomandante Marcos > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring >
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] http://lists.base64.com.au/listinfo/aus-soaring
