On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Raj Mathur <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 May 2010, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > > 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. > > > > 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. > > Agreed. Insofar as the issue of RAND/FRAND with no royalty is > concerned, what the draft policy seems to be proposing is exactly what > the community would have asked for. Proprietary standards are the only > option in fields where appropriate and extensive open standards are not > available. If such proprietary standards have to exist, we would want > them perpetually royalty-free under RAND or FRAND terms. > > Apart from arm-twisting vendors into making their RF RAND/FRAND > standards open, I see no way out of this dilemma and believe that GoI is > proposing the right approach. > > Regards, > > -- Raj > I heartily agree with Raj. The fact that the policy says, FRAND and RAND "with no payment" should be considered a significant improvement from the previous version. I am told that the proponents of open standards within the government have had to battle really hard to bring the policy to this level. At one point in time, the battle was considered lost, so this is a remarkable turnaround. Anyone who compares the loose and vague language of the previous version with this version would agree. I think we should now submit our suggestions before the end of the comments period (3rd June, 2010) and push for early approval of this policy. A decent (maybe not perfect) policy which is approved at the earliest is better than no policy at all. Once the policy is approved, we must shift focus to the monitoring and implementation of the policy. And here, we will have to be extra vigilant, especially after seeing how brutally ISO was compromised during the OOXML approval process. Venky
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
