[Arm-netbook] Wikipedia article

[Paul Boddie]

On Saturday 27. August 2016 06.00.24 Muhammed Adel Afzal wrote:
> Is "libre" better defined, and a better match, for EOMA-68?  Better than
> "open" standard, I mean.  Genuine question .. I have no idea.
> 
> Wiki says "open" right now.

Back in the thread about OSHWA ("need help! getting a bit overwhelmed on 
lists.oshwa.org"), I wrote that "terms like "open standards" have tried to 
retain their credibility, but there are still controversies about "RAND", 
"FRAND" and other nasty traps that give claims of openness little face value".

"RAND" means "reasonable and non-discriminatory"; "FRAND" means "fair, 
reasonable and non-discriminatory":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing

Both terms are often used by organisations wishing to portray standards they 
support (or have proposed) as being inclusive, with the "non-discriminatory" 
aspect supposedly prohibiting the kind of shady practice of charging one 
licencee one fee and another a higher fee, often to coerce licencees into a 
pattern of desired behaviour (which is what Microsoft was apparently doing 
with its product licencees, making hardware manufacturers drop competing 
software products or pay higher licensing fees).

And the "reasonable" aspect may actually exclude Free Software projects and 
organisations because any licensing of the standard may involve a fee that 
then prevents the normal distribution of Free Software. By insisting on any 
fee, even a small one and even a one-off fee, smaller organisations and 
individuals may not be able to carry the burden, particularly if there are 
other "FRAND" standards that they also have to licence. And of course, any 
licensing fees payable upon distribution are just incompatible with Free 
Software, anyway: people can share Free Software after having received it; are 
they supposed to collect patent licensing fees from their friends to send to 
the standards cartel?

Still, I don't know of any terms that are currently better than "open 
standard", although I don't follow discussions about that kind of thing, 
either.

Paul