On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]> wrote: > The relevant part of the clause is clearly an exception: "If such > Standards are not found feasible then in the wider public interest". It > goes on to state that FRAND and RAND "with no payment" could be considered. > > Apart from semantics, F/RAND + no payments (with the standard > disclaimers of being irrevocable, etc.) = Royalty-Free. > > Sure, exceptions (which the policy, from the perspective of governance, > must have) can be widely construed. That does not in and of itself > damage the policy, so long as the exceptions don't invite such > constructions. I don't believe these do. And, the policy being on the > rulebooks is only a reason for us to be ever more vigilant in ensuring > that the exceptions are few and that the spirit of the policy (which is > very crisply laid out in the Preamble and clause 1) is followed. > > Or is there something I'm missing? >
Why should such vague clauses be kept in the first place? With that provision it is not possible to follow clause 1. You need to consider actual implementation scenarios to see that. If a standard is not open then it is 'not open'. Perhaps those would be better off as 'pseudo open standards'. Or do we have to have to fight wars over exceptions becoming the rule? In 4.1.4, 'recursively open' is not appropriate and the line should be more explicit. Best A. Mani -- A. Mani ASL, CLC, AMS, CMS http://www.logicamani.co.cc _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
