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

Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645 at
Thu Jun 25 19:28:17 UTC 2015

Hi Nico, 
overlooked this post first. So here comes the feed back to some left points.

>>  >
>>  > More generic I've seen the standardization process at work from afar and
>>  > to me the process seems to be quite transparant. In the Netherlands the
>>  > standardization body NEN is in charge of developing standards. The
>>  > described approach [1] covers the forming of a committee which will
>>  > develop a new standard, which will be up for public review, followed by
>>  > publication and implementation. If the standard becomes outdated or
>>  > needs other adjustments,
>>  such as committing "hostile" acts against some competitors, of which free software projects could_ be one.
>>  (Are not they all corrupt down to the bones? It is not at all insulting to state that.)
> The formal answer is that if you want to defend your interest, you'd
> have to join the standardization process. What that comes down to in
> practice, I don't know.
For they played soccer at national war field, everything seemed possible again. This is true. Maybe as funny as effective are your proposals in the end, hm?

>>  > However: what happens when patents are filed after the standard is
>>  > drafted? and is a non-discriminatory low-cost license fee for each
>>  > implementation acceptable?
>>  " low-cost license fee for each implementation"
>>  Says the fsf in there faq, it were "ufo".
> I haven't been able to get formal clarification on this point, so yes a
> low-cost license fee might be the case. Although of course I'm hoping it
> to be a free-of-cost license if any. Especially I'm interested to known
> what happens when related patents are issues after a standard has been
> set (as I've observed covering certain implementation details). Than
> from that moment on all implementing parties might have to cope with
> additional license fees.
What speaks against suing-each-other-logic?  (;

>>   To me these seem to be the more fundamental
>>  > questions for which I still lack an answer. This especially interesting
>>  > in that I know of a GPLv3 client-side implementation of a standard. If
>>  > this standard is indeed subject to license fees, there seems to be a
>>  > legal conflict.
>>  "license fee" in your case stems from a specs copyright? or a possible per implementation fee of an underlying patent?
>>  Hey, _I am new to it and interested in some case training..._.
>>   Where do you see exactly the problem (point in license text of gpl_v3) ? Distributing copies?
>>  For any "stand-alone and system-library" issues there is still lpgl available, is not it?
>>  If an in-code actual patent is effective then free license seems to be broken during that time, cause one is gets new duties for distributing copies.
> GPLv3 implies that related patent licenses are propagated with the
> software, for patents owned by the software contributor. In addition the
> contributor is to take steps to avoid patent restrictions from known
> patents. Please read it for yourself in section 11 of the GPLv3. [1] I'm
> no expert either, but to me it seems the conflict is that there exist
> patents related to a GPv3 libary which don't seem properly addressed. In
> a way as a user of the software I would be able to sue the developer for
> not taking the proper considerations. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
> [1]
Do not know who can sue in the end of the day against whom. But I hold fast that the contract (gpl-license) is to be considered as invalid as the a contract conflicts with higher law. You simply can not grant such freedom of distribution, even if you state that. An invalid contract is not a crime nor a violation of anything by itself, it is just that it can not fulfill its purpose. 
It think in the end of the day the patent holder comes and wants money per implementation. That is the suit case and threat for anybody involved then...
Might be so difficult to have some discussion about that because discussing contracting_ problems are the lawyers bread, which I regard a pity.

One penny more: I thing the fsf finished off the explanation of the problem of patents in their faqs. And yours should be among them..
>>  > Regarding your point on strategy, I guess practical advise would be
>>  > helpful to ease implementation and avoid conflicts. At least I assume
>>  > you're referring to the interest of programmers. I guess such a strategy
>>  > would have to cover:
>>  > 0) how to stand against any discrimination, in order to prevent the
>>  > upcoming points.
>>  > 1) how to legally retrieve free-of-cost and free-for-use information on
>>  > a standard (including reverse-engineering).
>>  > 2) how to discover, handle or circumvent patent and copyright issues.
>>  > 3) how to guarantee the freedoms with redistribution.
>>  > 4) how to monitor external developments to prevent getting into new
>>  > conflicts.
>>  Yes, 0-3 agreement. 4: do not understand
> E.g. if new patents arise on certain implementation details this should
> be noticed ans warned for. Also consider the Open Innovation Network,
> building a patent portfolio as well as creating defensive publications
> to prevent new patents.
ok, got it. Seems challenging. 

>>  --->One has to note that 1a) "free-of-cost information", would require letting fall the open standard definition hold by now by the fsfe and switch to new one.
>>  This facts had been found out in this thread.
> I wasn't conscious of that point coming up, so thanks for mentioning
> explicitly. Apart from the FSFE-definition, acquiring the information is
> free-of-cost can be said to be desirable. 

>And bringing tips wouldn't
> hurt.
Exactly. Great.

>>  Honestly I consider the concern that grave that it required a whole internal communication labor. Effectively we found ourselves blowing against the winds of mentioned propaganda, says I. Hopefully it longs not a hundred years, too. Some carefully designed campaign is needed... <---
> True, I like to think this thread has helped clarify the issue for some
> of us. Even if we are left with some disagreements, a lot of common
> ground is available.
Yes, there are resources, the challenge is to make use out of them.
I support your very point.

> Like I addressed in my email earlier today, the resource-load of
> drafting standards can be skewed towards supporting organizations or
> contributors as well.
Yes, for example. As it is a governmental act then one could think of plenty of remedies for fixes they brought us in.

So far, about the upcoming work plan (wiki), I would like to have a separate conversation/communication. And as said I would like to fit in your wishes.

More information about the Discussion mailing list