At Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:05:44 +0100, Alex Hudson wrote: > > On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 13:52 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > At Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:25:02 +0100, > > Alex Hudson wrote: > > > I guess you can say "RF-AND" (Royalty-free and non-discriminatory), as > > > opposed to RAND, and people would figure out what you were saying. > > > > Royalty-free is always non-discriminatory. > > That really rather depends on your point of view; if RF was always > non-discriminatory we probably wouldn't be even having this discussion. > > If I have patents which cover standard X, and my licence is "You may > implement my patents so long as you do not provide the source to your > software", I think most here would consider that to be discriminatory > against free software. > > The fact that I don't charge for that license doesn't really come into > it. > > I agree that any requirement for royalty is probably the largest > stumbling block, though.
If something is made available royalty-free, everybody is free to use it. That's the only sensible definition of royalty-free. If only a small or big group is able to use it without paying, it simply isn't available royalty-free. Jeroen Dekkers _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
