summary of Re: Beyond 'open standard'

[Alex Hudson]

On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 13:52 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> At Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:25:02 +0100,
> Alex Hudson wrote:
> > I guess you can say "RF-AND" (Royalty-free and non-discriminatory), as
> > opposed to RAND, and people would figure out what you were saying.
> 
> Royalty-free is always non-discriminatory.

That really rather depends on your point of view; if RF was always
non-discriminatory we probably wouldn't be even having this discussion.

If I have patents which cover standard X, and my licence is "You may
implement my patents so long as you do not provide the source to your
software", I think most here would consider that to be discriminatory
against free software.

The fact that I don't charge for that license doesn't really come into
it.

I agree that any requirement for royalty is probably the largest
stumbling block, though.

Cheers,

Alex.