From: Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 20:04:05 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: New post.
X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/homepage.git/commitdiff_plain/205140799d4859027b929ebf9419231b90c461e1?ds=inline

New post.
---

diff --git a/blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt b/blog/data/2012-04-19-rand.txt
index 6be1d3d840..55bd9f13e2 100644
--- 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
-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
@@ -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
-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
 help to know that software patents are not supposed to be enforceable