[News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies - Linux

This is a discussion on [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies - Linux ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 2008-04-02 Royalty Free versus Reasonable and Non Discriminatory Licensing ,----[ Quote ] | Now, here an example of a RAND (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) licensing | model, this one has been made by Cisco ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

  1. [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    2008-04-02 Royalty Free versus Reasonable and Non Discriminatory Licensing

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Now, here an example of a RAND (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) licensing
    | model, this one has been made by Cisco about VRRP :
    |
    | Cisco is the owner of US patent No. 5 473 599, relating to the subject matter
    | of "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol for IPv6
    | . If technology in this document is
    | included in a standard adopted by IETF and any claims of this or any other
    | Cisco patent are necessary for practicing the standard, any party will be
    | able to obtain a license from Cisco to use any such patent claims under
    | reasonable, non-discriminatory terms to implement and fully comply with the
    | standard.
    |
    | First you need to contact Cisco to have a license but the terms are
    | unknown. "Non-discriminatory" is vague and could be an issue for any free
    | software implementation.
    `----

    http://www.foo.be/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/20...tory_Licensing

    Rambus Court: “Price Raising Deception” Not Competitive Harm

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | By the time Rambus announced its patents and began demanding royalties (and
    | filing patent infringement suits against companies that refused to pay
    | royalties), Rambus had achieved a technical “lock-in” that made it difficult
    | for the memory chip industry to move to a different technology. Rambus’s
    | lock-in allowed it to obtain a 90% market-share, and demand supracompetitive
    | royalties from companies that were producing JEDEC-compliant memory devices.
    | Rambus has earned several billion dollars in licensing fees to date, and by
    | some estimates its total royalties are could reach as high as $11 billion.
    `----

    http://www.masslawblog.com/?p=179


    Recent:

    Nokia to W3C: Ogg is proprietary, we need DRM on the Web

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | But remember, that's not what Nokia is objecting to: they are arguing that
    | Ogg is proprietary (it isn't) and that DRM should be part of a Web standard
    | (it shouldn't). *
    `----

    http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/09...3c-ogg-is.html
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFIOGY6U4xAY3RXLo4RAgm5AKCEERf9OlunKXXJqjIxJK oDTH+5ygCcChcX
    RiOt5i9QJH7h39ztQ+QQ4Ms=
    =kTyJ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  2. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > 2008-04-02 Royalty Free versus Reasonable and Non Discriminatory Licensing
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    >| Now, here an example of a RAND (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) licensing
    >| model, this one has been made by Cisco about VRRP :
    >|
    >| Cisco is the owner of US patent No. 5 473 599, relating to the subject matter
    >| of "Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol for IPv6
    >| . If technology in this document is
    >| included in a standard adopted by IETF and any claims of this or any other
    >| Cisco patent are necessary for practicing the standard, any party will be
    >| able to obtain a license from Cisco to use any such patent claims under
    >| reasonable, non-discriminatory terms to implement and fully comply with the
    >| standard.
    >|
    >| First you need to contact Cisco to have a license but the terms are
    >| unknown. "Non-discriminatory" is vague and could be an issue for any free
    >| software implementation.
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.foo.be/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/20...tory_Licensing
    >


    Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  3. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    In article ,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    > Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.


    GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?


    --
    --Tim Smith

  4. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.

    >
    > GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?
    >
    >


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasona...tory_Licensing

    "RAND is also in conflict with free software as this is often offered for
    no fee at all and most often with no way to track any distribution or
    even the "customer base". Whoever does use the software is granted the
    rights of the copyright holders for the code via some license like the
    GPL for free. Other rights like patent rights and similar are generally
    not covered with this. If a user of such software thinks he needs more
    rights from third parties, then he has to care for this on his own. A
    RAND licensing for such other rights might still ease his operations but
    it just negates the freeness of a particular piece of software ??? written
    and licensed free but still in need for charges. Providing really free
    software for a standard that incorporates RAND components therefore is a
    problem for the free and open source community."


  5. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 17:32:43 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.

    >
    > GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?


    Time for Mark Kent to claim he doesn't see troll posts.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  6. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    owl espoused:
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >> In article ,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.

    >>
    >> GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasona...tory_Licensing
    >
    > "RAND is also in conflict with free software as this is often offered for
    > no fee at all and most often with no way to track any distribution or
    > even the "customer base". Whoever does use the software is granted the
    > rights of the copyright holders for the code via some license like the
    > GPL for free. Other rights like patent rights and similar are generally
    > not covered with this. If a user of such software thinks he needs more
    > rights from third parties, then he has to care for this on his own. A
    > RAND licensing for such other rights might still ease his operations but
    > it just negates the freeness of a particular piece of software ??? written
    > and licensed free but still in need for charges. Providing really free
    > software for a standard that incorporates RAND components therefore is a
    > problem for the free and open source community."
    >


    Which rather sums up why I keep Timmy in the killfile.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  7. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies


    "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    news:7r4qh5-ac8.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    > owl espoused:
    >> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>> In article ,
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.
    >>>
    >>> GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasona...tory_Licensing
    >>
    >> "RAND is also in conflict with free software as this is often offered
    >> for
    >> no fee at all and most often with no way to track any distribution or
    >> even the "customer base". Whoever does use the software is granted the
    >> rights of the copyright holders for the code via some license like the
    >> GPL for free. Other rights like patent rights and similar are generally
    >> not covered with this. If a user of such software thinks he needs more
    >> rights from third parties, then he has to care for this on his own. A
    >> RAND licensing for such other rights might still ease his operations but
    >> it just negates the freeness of a particular piece of software ???
    >> written
    >> and licensed free but still in need for charges. Providing really free
    >> software for a standard that incorporates RAND components therefore is a
    >> problem for the free and open source community."
    >>

    >
    > Which rather sums up why I keep Timmy in the killfile.


    A more truthful answer is that you probably do see his posts. But it's
    easier to run, hide and claim you don't see them then it is to justify your
    lies.



    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  8. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >>
    >> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.

    >
    > GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?


    That's not really a sensible question, is it?
    If RAND qualifies as GPL, then your question is possibly a valid one.

    I can see that GPL qualifies as RAND.
    Are you claiming that RAND qualifies as GPL?

  9. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    Mark Kent wrote:
    > owl espoused:
    >> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.
    >>> GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad
    >>> now?

    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasona...tory_Licensing
    >>
    >> "RAND is also in conflict with free software as this is
    >> often offered for no fee at all and most often with no way
    >> to track any distribution or even the "customer base".
    >> Whoever does use the software is granted the rights of the
    >> copyright holders for the code via some license like the GPL
    >> for free. Other rights like patent rights and similar are
    >> generally not covered with this. If a user of such software
    >> thinks he needs more rights from third parties, then he has
    >> to care for this on his own. A RAND licensing for such other
    >> rights might still ease his operations but it just negates
    >> the freeness of a particular piece of software ??? written
    >> and licensed free but still in need for charges. Providing
    >> really free software for a standard that incorporates RAND
    >> components therefore is a problem for the free and open
    >> source community."

    >
    > Which rather sums up why I keep Timmy in the killfile.


    Timmy is a long term troll. Just like the Devil, the only thing
    Timmy has going for him is experience. He has a way of doing his
    deep, selective snippages to remove context, then bringing a
    favourite past insignificant non-issue to light to support his
    fellow trolls. His favourite is arguing why the current charter
    is not the charter.

    Most of the time he is a total waste of time to reply to. I
    rarely reply to him, but sometimes he brings up my nym (usually
    in a less than sincere manner), which I feel a reply is owed to.

    --
    HPT

  10. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    In article <6avn1bF37depaU2@mid.individual.net>,
    bbgruff wrote:
    > > In article ,
    > > Mark Kent wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.

    > >
    > > GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?

    >
    > That's not really a sensible question, is it?
    > If RAND qualifies as GPL, then your question is possibly a valid one.
    >
    > I can see that GPL qualifies as RAND.
    > Are you claiming that RAND qualifies as GPL?


    RAND is a set of conditions that a license must satisfy. Mark, and some
    others, seem to be confused and think that RAND *is* a license. Hence,
    if a standards body requires that standards be made available under a
    RAND license, these people think that means the standard is
    automatically incompatible with free software.

    Nearly every free software license meets the conditions of RAND, and is
    therefore a RAND license. Whether a given RAND license is compatible
    with free software or not depends on the particular license the owner of
    that thing chooses to use.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  11. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 11:34:47 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:


    >
    > Which rather sums up why I keep Timmy in the killfile.


    Yea.
    He spanks you every single time you utter one of your inaccurate
    blabbering's.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  12. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:32:22 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:

    > "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    > news:7r4qh5-ac8.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    >> owl espoused:
    >>> Tim Smith wrote:
    >>>> In article ,
    >>>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.
    >>>>
    >>>> GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasona...tory_Licensing
    >>>
    >>> "RAND is also in conflict with free software as this is often offered
    >>> for
    >>> no fee at all and most often with no way to track any distribution or
    >>> even the "customer base". Whoever does use the software is granted the
    >>> rights of the copyright holders for the code via some license like the
    >>> GPL for free. Other rights like patent rights and similar are generally
    >>> not covered with this. If a user of such software thinks he needs more
    >>> rights from third parties, then he has to care for this on his own. A
    >>> RAND licensing for such other rights might still ease his operations but
    >>> it just negates the freeness of a particular piece of software ???
    >>> written
    >>> and licensed free but still in need for charges. Providing really free
    >>> software for a standard that incorporates RAND components therefore is a
    >>> problem for the free and open source community."
    >>>

    >>
    >> Which rather sums up why I keep Timmy in the killfile.

    >
    > A more truthful answer is that you probably do see his posts. But it's
    > easier to run, hide and claim you don't see them then it is to justify your
    > lies.


    +1

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  13. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    In article <7r4qh5-ac8.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    > Which rather sums up why I keep Timmy in the killfile.


    You got tired of being constantly shown to be wrong? I've got news for
    you: you are still constantly shown to be wrong. And since you no
    longer are capable of learning from that, you keep repeating your same
    mistakes, and hence end up looking really silly.

    It's funny that someone who claims to actually be involved in the
    standards process doesn't know what RAND is.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  14. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article <6avn1bF37depaU2@mid.individual.net>,
    > bbgruff wrote:
    >> > In article ,
    >> > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.
    >> >
    >> > GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?

    >>
    >> That's not really a sensible question, is it?
    >> If RAND qualifies as GPL, then your question is possibly a valid one.
    >>
    >> I can see that GPL qualifies as RAND.
    >> Are you claiming that RAND qualifies as GPL?

    >
    > RAND is a set of conditions that a license must satisfy. Mark, and some
    > others, seem to be confused and think that RAND *is* a license. Hence,
    > if a standards body requires that standards be made available under a
    > RAND license, these people think that means the standard is
    > automatically incompatible with free software.
    >
    > Nearly every free software license meets the conditions of RAND, and is
    > therefore a RAND license. Whether a given RAND license is compatible
    > with free software or not depends on the particular license the owner of
    > that thing chooses to use.


    Absolutely, and thank you Tim:-)

    GPL *must* be RAND.
    RAND may or may not be compatible with GPL - and hence people's concern, in
    that RAND sounds good, but often doesn't cut it as far as GPL is concerned.

  15. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In article <6avn1bF37depaU2@mid.individual.net>,
    > bbgruff wrote:
    >> > In article ,
    >> > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> Rand is just bad, unless it's an X.org extension.
    >> >
    >> > GPL qualifies as a RAND license. Do you think GPL is bad now?

    >>
    >> That's not really a sensible question, is it?
    >> If RAND qualifies as GPL, then your question is possibly a valid one.
    >>
    >> I can see that GPL qualifies as RAND.
    >> Are you claiming that RAND qualifies as GPL?

    >
    > RAND is a set of conditions that a license must satisfy. Mark, and some
    > others, seem to be confused and think that RAND *is* a license. Hence,
    > if a standards body requires that standards be made available under a
    > RAND license, these people think that means the standard is
    > automatically incompatible with free software.


    I'm not sure I've seen anyone claim that.

    I've seen some claims that a Microsoft "RAND" license is not "RAND" for
    Free software.

    > Nearly every free software license meets the conditions of RAND, and is
    > therefore a RAND license. Whether a given RAND license is compatible
    > with free software or not depends on the particular license the owner of
    > that thing chooses to use.


    Exactly.

    --
    To create a new standard, it takes something that's not just a little bit
    different; it takes something that's really new and really captures people's
    imagination -- and the Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the
    only one that meets that standard.
    -- Bill Gates

  16. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    Verily I say unto thee, that High Plains Thumper spake thusly:

    > Timmy is a long term troll. Just like the Devil, the only thing
    > Timmy has going for him is experience.


    Well he has plenty of experience talking ****e, certainly.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    22:38:54 up 169 days, 19:14, 6 users, load average: 0.07, 0.08, 0.05

  17. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:

    > GPL *must* be RAND. RAND may or may not be compatible with GPL - and
    > hence people's concern, in that RAND sounds good, but often doesn't
    > cut it as far as GPL is concerned.


    IOW Smith just blew off a lot of hot air for nothing.

    It's like watching a headless chicken make a break for it.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    22:47:26 up 169 days, 19:23, 6 users, load average: 1.07, 1.15, 0.60

  18. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    Verily I say unto thee, that Linonut spake thusly:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:


    >> Nearly every free software license meets the conditions of RAND,
    >> and is therefore a RAND license. Whether a given RAND license is
    >> compatible with free software or not depends on the particular
    >> license the owner of that thing chooses to use.

    >
    > Exactly.


    RAND is an indefinite term that may infringe other conditions depending
    on the definite terms stipulated, as clearly demonstrated by the recent
    exposure of Moonlight on Groklaw. Of course Smith /knew/ this before he
    started his little FUD injection, by presenting RAND as some innocuous;
    generic term that doesn't differ between one licensor and the next, and
    then comparing MS's monopolistic conditions to the GPL for vindication.

    IOW, he's trying to manipulate us into believing that because Destroying
    Angels and Golden Chanterelles are both mushrooms, then the former can't
    be deadly poisonous.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
    | ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
    23:29:20 up 169 days, 20:05, 6 users, load average: 0.02, 0.03, 0.06

  19. Re: [News] The RAND Scam Against Free Software, for Monopolies

    Homer wrote:
    > High Plains Thumper spake thusly:
    >
    >> Timmy is a long term troll. Just like the Devil, the only thing Timmy
    >> has going for him is experience.

    >
    > Well he has plenty of experience talking ****e, certainly.


    Unfortunately that is about all he talks about.

    --
    HPT

  20. Nym shifting is not for the easily confused


    Hey, High Plains Thumper...looks like you got your configurations mixed
    up between your nyms. You've been posting for the last couple of days
    as "High Plains Thumper", but using the cnntp.org server that used to be
    just for your nyms.

    --
    --Tim Smith

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast