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

[Tom Blecher]

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 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.fsf.europe.discussion/5257 (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
Regards  


01.06.2015, 20:20, "Nico Rikken" <nico.rikken at fsfe.org>:
> 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
>
> ,
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion