WebKit rising - Perhaps I tend to worry to much ...

Re: your ECMA quote.  

You are aware that "Reasonable and non-discriminatory" (RAND) licensing, 
as traditionally formulated, is not anything of the sort when it comes to 
Free Software, right?  The problem is that RAND allows per-copy royalties, 
as long as they are offered at a standard "reasonable" rate to everyone.  
Of course, per-copy royalties do a number on Free Software, since that 
means it's not freely redistributable without by definition making the 
distributor liable for infinite royalties!

So while the term /sounds/ good, those concerned about their Free Software 
rights have learned that RAND, by itself, ensures nothing.  In fact, it's 
a negative, since it's likely to effectively ban Free Software 
use /at/ /all/, unless there are additional clauses that specifically nail 
down those royalties to zero or at minimum, a one-time fee that covers all 
use downstream and is specifically /not/ purpose restricted, for some form 
of Free Software license.  (If the licencer wishes to maintain some 
restriction, they may limit it to copy-left licenses or to say the GPL 
specifically, if not, they may include MIT/BSD as well.)  Or, a legally 
binding pledge to the same effect can also be acceptable.

Other than that, I've nothing specific to point to; I'm simply pointing 
out that your quote of the RAND licensing conditions doesn't mean what it 
might intuitively look like it does, because in fact, RAND *IS* 
discriminatory, as the term was developed in a commercial context without 
reference to Free Software and due to terms, discriminates against it.  As 
such, it's a favorite of MS, since they can claim to be non-discriminatory 
while in fact being nothing of the sort.

Duncan