Is standardization deemed to be against FS and how can it be tackled?

[Nico Rikken]

Dear Tom,

I feel like I'm not fully understanding your question or aim, but at the
very least let me summarize my findings based on terms and resources
mentioned today.

The RAND or FRAND mainly refers to the licensing policy associated with
the standards. This especially makes sense in industries where basically
everything is patented, which is just about every industry other than
the software industry. Being up to date in making standards is part of
the standardization process, [1] and therefore dealing with active
patents is hard to avoid.


[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%
BCr_Normung#Grundprinzipien (German only)

That seems to be why standardization bodies have adopted policies for
patents related to standards. [2] ISO offers two options, possibly
free-of-charge, either way "on a non-discriminatory basis on reasonable
terms and conditions.". [3] If a patent holder will not agree to these
terms, even though the negotiations are handled outside the
standardization organization, the standard will avoid the patent.

[2] http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/patents
[3]
http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770791/Common_Guidelines_01_March_07.pdf

So regarding the discrimination of free software, the ability to make
use of a liberal licensing policy of essential. I'm not sure if
free-of-cost would suffice, as this might not cover modifications
(freedom 2). Whether or not liberal licensing policies are preferred in
the standardization-process I don't know.

That leaves the subject of Open Standards. The definition of Open
Standards seems to be inherently incompatible with active patents. I'm
curious whether or not the process adopted by the standardization bodies
is sufficiently open for the Open Standards definition, as I haven't
looked into the standardization process that much, and it might vary
between organizations.

Does that answer your questions? If not I'd be glad to hear about them
and delve into it.

Kind regards,
Nico Rikken

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20150601/0e408eee/attachment.sig>