[beyond-licensing] Responding to FRAND

[Michael Dolan]

I'm also concerned about the FRAND approaches I'm seeing. In particular FRAND standards bodies are attempting to release "open source" codebases that implement the necessary elements of the FRAND encumbered standard. It seems most prevalent to me in Europe right now, though I honestly do not understand why. I can understand open source projects have implemented standards (or portions thereof) for decades, however, their activity as separate from the standards creation entity gives them freedom of implementation (e.g. to work around any patents or not implement that patented portion). This new model I'm seeing is more concerning b/c the open source project is governed by the standards body and the scope of the project is explicitly tied to a particular FRAND implementation requirement.
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: [beyond-licensing] Responding to FRAND
From: "Simon Phipps" <simon at webmink.com>
Date: 4/28/16 12:10 pm
To: "Beyond Licensing" <beyond-licensing at opensource.org>

 The debate about FRAND licensing for patents has sprung up again in Europe. In a blog post, I argue that understanding why FRAND is bad for standards and for open source, we need to look beyond licensing and apply the OSD to practice as well.  
https://meshedinsights.com/2016/04/28/frand-is-not-a-compliance-issue/
  
-- 
         Simon Phipps  http://webmink.com  
Office: +1 (415) 683-7660 or +44 (238) 098 7027
Signal/Mobile:  +44 774 776 2816


 










_______________________________________________ beyond-licensing mailing list beyond-licensing at opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beyond-licensing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/beyond-licensing_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160428/f9bca8f8/attachment.html>