Hi people, I was some days off but am stil after "this here". Some interesting new insight, questions, point of views came up, which seem, which might be important, prospective. So overwhelmed I decide to send all text in somewhat unintelligible format http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.fsf.europe.discussion/5257 (hooo what happened?) through the printer and get some systematic, some clearance back to it, in order to figure out, if there is a cause for misunderstanding outside mine.
want to work out a __interim report to get further on to an __end report on the situation. Then dare to express what could be done next and worse: what should have been done supposedly. *g* migth furtheron express my thanks for all participants who by all supposed impatience had not grown personal - against my ever presumption. (: Till then Regards 01.06.2015, 20:20, "Nico Rikken" <[email protected]>: > Dear Tom, > > I feel like I'm not fully understanding your question or aim, but at the > very least let me summarize my findings based on terms and resources > mentioned today. > > The RAND or FRAND mainly refers to the licensing policy associated with > the standards. This especially makes sense in industries where basically > everything is patented, which is just about every industry other than > the software industry. Being up to date in making standards is part of > the standardization process, [1] and therefore dealing with active > patents is hard to avoid. > > [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3% > BCr_Normung#Grundprinzipien (German only) > > That seems to be why standardization bodies have adopted policies for > patents related to standards. [2] ISO offers two options, possibly > free-of-charge, either way "on a non-discriminatory basis on reasonable > terms and conditions.". [3] If a patent holder will not agree to these > terms, even though the negotiations are handled outside the > standardization organization, the standard will avoid the patent. > > [2] http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/patents > [3] > http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/Common_Guidelines_01_March_07.pdf > > So regarding the discrimination of free software, the ability to make > use of a liberal licensing policy of essential. I'm not sure if > free-of-cost would suffice, as this might not cover modifications > (freedom 2). Whether or not liberal licensing policies are preferred in > the standardization-process I don't know. > > That leaves the subject of Open Standards. The definition of Open > Standards seems to be inherently incompatible with active patents. I'm > curious whether or not the process adopted by the standardization bodies > is sufficiently open for the Open Standards definition, as I haven't > looked into the standardization process that much, and it might vary > between organizations. > > Does that answer your questions? If not I'd be glad to hear about them > and delve into it. > > Kind regards, > Nico Rikken > > , > > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
