On Thursday 20 May 2010 02:57:49 Pranesh Prakash wrote: > All laws, rules, regulations are as only good as their > mplementation. This will be no exception. > > On Wednesday 19 May 2010 11:42 PM, Nagarjuna G wrote: > > The issue that remains is: as per the definition of open > > standards adopted by the FOSS community, FRAND or RAND should not > > exist. Currently if this policy is adopted, FRAND and RAND > > condition may now become part of open standards definition within > > Indian legal regime. This is a dilution. > > 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.
Not quite. This RAND / FRAND clause is a particular cause of grief. Subclauses in RAND which cause problems 1) The licensor insisting on individual permission for distribution. It is a most effective block against FOSS. The erstwhile Sun Java licence 2) Free for non commercial use. H264 / MP4 There could well be other conditions which work against FLOSS. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
