New post.

diff --git a/blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt b/blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt
index 6be1d3d84057ba34e4225835477518542aaa172e..55bd9f13e2e4559ddb997d3640ed369166956a43 100644 (file)
--- a/blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt
+++ b/blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt
@@ -4,13 +4,14 @@ Date: 2012-04-19 23:00
 
 <p>Here in Norway, the
 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad.html?id=339"> Ministry of
 
 <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
 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
 
 <p>But recently, some standards with RAND
 (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing">Reasonable


@@ -20,18 +21,19 @@ standard specifications with RAND terms often block free software from
 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
 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.
 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
 
 <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
 help to know that software patents are not supposed to be enforceable
 how this really is non-reasonable and discriminatory.  Because free
 software developers are working in a global marked, it does not really
 help to know that software patents are not supposed to be enforceable