On Thursday 20 May 2010 05:42 AM, A. Mani wrote:
Why should such vague clauses be kept in the first place?
Could you please substantiate how it is 'vague'? And it should be kept because not ever single standard in the world (not Unicode, for instance) is licensed under RF terms. But they can, practically, be royalty-free. I'd still like to know how:
F/RAND + No Payment != Royalty-Free != 'Open'
In 4.1.4, 'recursively open' is not appropriate and the line should be more explicit.
Check the accompanying manual and the FAQs. Cheers, Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
