On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]> wrote: > 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'?
'reasonable' is not defined anywhere. 'non-discriminatory' is apparently relative potential vendors and/or relative implementations at the time. RAND in the ISO context is a well known mess. With 'plenty of reasonable conditions and terms', the patent holder can impose severe restrictions on implementations even in the RF context. I think you should at least clarify the position relative ISO's or W3C's interpretation. 'fair' is relative stake holders or vendors alone? > 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' jtd provided examples. >> In 4.1.4, 'recursively open' is not appropriate and the line should be >> more explicit. > > Check the accompanying manual and the FAQs. If two open standards are merged to form a new standard then the new standard is not a 'new version' of the older standards. 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
