Title: RAND terms - non-reasonable and discriminatory
Tags: english, nuug, standard, video, multimedia
-Date: 2012-04-19 23:00
+Date: 2012-04-19 22:20
<p>Here in Norway, the
<a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad.html?id=339"> Ministry of
-Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs</a> have created
+Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs</a> is behind
a <a href="http://standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder">directory of
-standards</a> that are recommended or mandatory for use in the
-government. When the directory was first published, the people behind
-it made an effort to ensure that everyone would be able to implement
-the standards and compete on equal terms to supply software and
-solutions to the government.</p>
+standards</a> that are recommended or mandatory for use by the
+government. When the directory was created, the people behind it made
+an effort to ensure that everyone would be able to implement the
+standards and compete on equal terms to supply software and solutions
+to the government. Free software and non-free software could compete
+on the same level.</p>
<p>But recently, some standards with RAND
(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing">Reasonable
implementing them. The reasonable part of RAND mean that the cost per
user/unit is low,and the non-discriminatory part mean that everyone
willing to pay will get a license. Both sound great in theory. In
-practice, to get such license one need to be able to count ones users,
-and be able to pay a small amount of money per unit or user. By
+practice, to get such license one need to be able to count users, and
+be able to pay a small amount of money per unit or user. By
definition, users of free software do not need to register their use.
-So counting users or units is not possible. And given that people
-will use the software without handing any money to the author, it is
-not really economically possible for a free software author to pay a
-small amount of money to license the rights to implement a standard.
-The result is that free software are locked out of standards with RAND
-terms.</p>
+So counting users or units is not possible for free software projects.
+And given that people will use the software without handing any money
+to the author, it is not really economically possible for a free
+software author to pay a small amount of money to license the rights
+to implement a standard when the income available is zero. The result
+in these situations is that free software are locked out from
+implementing standards with RAND terms.</p>
<p>Because of this, when I see someone claiming the terms of a
-standard is Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory, all I can think of is
+standard is reasonable and non-discriminatory, all I can think of is
how this really is non-reasonable and discriminatory. Because free
-software developers are working in a global marked, it does not really
+software developers are working in a global market, it does not really
help to know that software patents are not supposed to be enforceable
in Norway. The patent regimes in other countries affect us even here.
I really hope the people behind the standard directory will pay more
from Simon Phipps
(<a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/11/rand-not-so-reasonable/">RAND:
Not So Reasonable?</a>).</p>
+
+<p>Update 2012-04-21: Just came across a
+<a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/of-microsoft-netscape-patents-and-open-standards/index.htm">blog
+post from Glyn Moody</a> over at Computer World UK warning about the
+same issue, and urging people to speak out to the UK government. I
+can only urge Norwegian users to do the same for
+<a href="http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/hoyring-om-nye-anbefalte-it-standarder">the
+hearing taking place at the moment</a> (respond before 2012-04-27).
+It proposes to require video conferencing standards including
+specifications with RAND terms.</p>
projects / homepage.git / blobdiff