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

Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645 at
Sat Jun 6 12:31:12 UTC 2015

Hi people,
I was some days off but am stil after "this here". 
Some interesting new insight, questions, point of views came up, which seem, which might be important, prospective.
So overwhelmed I decide to send all text
in somewhat unintelligible format (hooo what happened?)  
through the printer and get some systematic, some clearance back to it, in order to figure out, if there is a cause for misunderstanding outside mine.

 want to work out a __interim report to get further on to an __end report on the situation. Then dare to express what could be done next and worse: what should have been done supposedly. *g*

migth furtheron express my thanks for all participants who by all supposed impatience had not grown personal - against my ever presumption. (:
Till then

01.06.2015, 20:20, "Nico Rikken" <nico.rikken at>:
> 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]
> 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]
> [3]
> 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
> ,
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at

More information about the Discussion mailing list