This once I actually agree with Grokl.. :-)

Posted Oct 20, 2010 13:56 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
In reply to: This once I actually agree with Grokl.. :-) by tzafrir
Parent article: Open Standards in Europe: FSFE responds to BSA letter

The second question about whether we "want" this is, for the umpteenth time, separate from whether it's intellectually honest to claim that patent royalties don't work for FOSS.

In terms of "reasonable" for small companies, they will always have some structural disadvantages compared to large companies in a variety of contexts. Even if you solved this for IP, it would still be a problem in other fields. So it's not an argument with which you can convince politicians to ask IP holders to waive the entirety of their rights just to solve a part of your structural problem.

This once I actually agree with Grokl.. :-)

Posted Oct 20, 2010 14:11 UTC (Wed) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] (1 responses)

I must say that this is an odd definition of an Open Standard. I prefer the one of the w3c. But I'm glad you clarified your definition.

This once I actually agree with Grokl.. :-)

Posted Oct 20, 2010 14:13 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

I want to point out that I didn't provide, let alone clarify, a definition of an "open standard".