blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt

   1 Title: RAND terms - non-reasonable and discriminatory
   2 Tags: english, nuug, standard, video, multimedia
   3 Date: 2012-04-19 22:20
   4
   5 <p>Here in Norway, the
   6 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad.html?id=339"> Ministry of
   7 Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs</a> is behind
   8 a <a href="http://standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder">directory of
   9 standards</a> that are recommended or mandatory for use by the
  10 government.  When the directory was created, the people behind it made
  11 an effort to ensure that everyone would be able to implement the
  12 standards and compete on equal terms to supply software and solutions
  13 to the government.  Free software and non-free software could compete
  14 on the same level.</p>
  15
  16 <p>But recently, some standards with RAND
  17 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing">Reasonable
  18 And Non-Discriminatory</a>) terms have made their way into the
  19 directory.  And while this might not sound too bad, the fact is that
  20 standard specifications with RAND terms often block free software from
  21 implementing them.  The reasonable part of RAND mean that the cost per
  22 user/unit is low,and the non-discriminatory part mean that everyone
  23 willing to pay will get a license.  Both sound great in theory.  In
  24 practice, to get such license one need to be able to count users, and
  25 be able to pay a small amount of money per unit or user.  By
  26 definition, users of free software do not need to register their use.
  27 So counting users or units is not possible for free software projects.
  28 And given that people will use the software without handing any money
  29 to the author, it is not really economically possible for a free
  30 software author to pay a small amount of money to license the rights
  31 to implement a standard when the income available is zero.  The result
  32 in these situations is that free software are locked out from
  33 implementing standards with RAND terms.</p>
  34
  35 <p>Because of this, when I see someone claiming the terms of a
  36 standard is reasonable and non-discriminatory, all I can think of is
  37 how this really is non-reasonable and discriminatory.  Because free
  38 software developers are working in a global market, it does not really
  39 help to know that software patents are not supposed to be enforceable
  40 in Norway.  The patent regimes in other countries affect us even here.
  41 I really hope the people behind the standard directory will pay more
  42 attention to these issues in the future.</p>
  43
  44 <p>You can find more on the issues with RAND, FRAND and RAND-Z terms
  45 from Simon Phipps
  46 (<a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/11/rand-not-so-reasonable/">RAND:
  47 Not So Reasonable?</a>).</p>
  48
  49 <p>Update 2012-04-21: Just came across a
  50 <a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/of-microsoft-netscape-patents-and-open-standards/index.htm">blog
  51 post from Glyn Moody</a> over at Computer World UK warning about the
  52 same issue, and urging people to speak out to the UK government.  I
  53 can only urge Norwegian users to do the same for
  54 <a href="http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/hoyring-om-nye-anbefalte-it-standarder">the
  55 hearing taking place at the moment</a> (respond before 2012-04-27).
  56 It proposes to require video conferencing standards including
  57 specifications with RAND terms.</p>