-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Sam Liddicott wrote: > I would cast it as an exception as it sounds more reasonable, as you are > protecting yourself against requirements so vaguely specified that you > may not be able to fulfil them anyway - who knows what they may specify: > > excluding proprietary or closed formats or formats covered by patent > which may then present a burden on the contractor or PCT. > > No doubt the PCT is not knowingly intending to oblige you to provide > data in formats so contrained anyway, so maybe they will have little > problem with such an addition.
I second this. I think the turn of phrase here is non-threatening, and is almost self-explanatory when it comes to justifying open standards. It would be worthwhile having a prepared speech explaining when *not* adopting closed or patented formats will help the PCT. Regards Shane - -- Shane Martin Coughlan e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] m: +447773180107 w: www.shaneland.co.uk - --- Projects: http://mobility.opendawn.com http://gem.opendawn.com http://enigmail.mozdev.org http://www.winpt.org - --- Organisations: http://www.fsfeurope.org http://www.fsf.org http://www.labour.org.uk http://www.opensourceacademy.gov.uk - --- OpenPGP: http://www.shaneland.co.uk/personalpages/shane/files/publickey.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3-cvs4067* (MingW32) iQCVAwUBRCwzZdwG3M95JPpzAQhTbgP9Gn1rN86VRdqt+mFF+K98Gt3rNJCY/n+w WlVL5JIvkFBy1H6Fku128QL3l/5KUNgZ65AF7xGHL6eyS46H5LUvgPT5xS8bOotX wqgz1uW5w/4Kf88qpUaEiU8pwAbOzjCZKKIC2Wumx0hxiqDlyUryE6NQsU+mAdbs 9RvxUz8jNJU= =/kN4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
