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

Posted Oct 21, 2010 12:40 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
In reply to: This once I actually agree with Grokl.. :-) by pboddie
Parent article: Open Standards in Europe: FSFE responds to BSA letter

I never supported the BSA position either. FSFE now claims I'm "echoing" Microsoft/BSA positions, which isn't true. What I suggest is for FOSS to meet FRAND and FRAND to meet FOSS in a way that works for both. That's as much in the middle of the two positions as it gets.

Concerning "royalty bearing regimes", there are various ways to define royalties and some of them do work with FOSS. One of them (or a combination of several of them) was apparently agreed by Red Hat in the FireStar deal and very likely also in the recent Acacia deal, and possibly also in other deals they never even announced.

If Red Hat wanted to be constructive and truly open, they could present (without providing confidential detail on the amounts they paid) the kinds of terms they've already accepted.

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

Posted Oct 21, 2010 14:49 UTC (Thu) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (8 responses)

When practically everyone in the community concerned gets a "perpetual, fully paid-up, royalty-free, irrevocable worldwide license to the patents", that's a perverse definition of royalty-bearing FRAND licensing indeed.

Again, I get the feeling I'm being trolled.

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

Posted Oct 21, 2010 14:52 UTC (Thu) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (7 responses)

Don't be paranoid about being trolled. But it would help if you could make it clearer what your concern is. You quoted a passage that says "paid-up". So a royalty payment was made. Why would this not be possible on FRAND terms? You can make a payment that's FRAND and then give customers this degree of legal certainty. All you need for that is FOSS-compatible FRAND.

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

Posted Oct 21, 2010 19:41 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

Do you not understand the term "royalty-bearing"? Or are you being deliberately dense?

"Royalty bearing" and "paid up" are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Re-read the GP in the light of that statement!

Cheers,
Wol

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

Posted Oct 22, 2010 2:15 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

"Paid-up" in that context just refers to the fact that downstream users don't have to pay. Nevertheless Red Hat committed to pay.

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

Posted Oct 21, 2010 20:06 UTC (Thu) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link] (4 responses)

a passage that says "paid-up". So a royalty payment was made.

Search for you grant "paid up". Search for java license "paid up". Search for mysql license "paid up". Search for fedora license "paid up". $0.00 is a common dollar amount on "paid up" notarized documents, says me, a notary public who has notarized well over ten thousand documents and is required to verify that they contain no material blanks, for instance in fields requiring dollar amounts. It's bog-standard boilerplate meaning no future payment is due. It says and implies exactly nothing about any past payments.

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

Posted Oct 22, 2010 2:18 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (3 responses)

I admit I was imprecise by referring to just the passage he quoted and that one term. There are other references in the published part of that license agreement that are not boilerplate and do make it clear that a payment had to be made.

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

Posted Oct 22, 2010 17:29 UTC (Fri) by jthill (subscriber, #56558) [Link] (2 responses)

Mr. Mueller, I believe you've now spent more words misrepresenting the FSFE's view and "imprecise"ly dwelling on that falsified view than they spent stating their actual view.

I suppose some sort of congratulations are in order.

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

Posted Oct 22, 2010 17:32 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (1 responses)

Do you think a statement like this is in any way a helpful contribution to a discussion? If you believe something is wrong, or if you disagree, you can suggest a correction or present a different view. If you do it clearly enough so that one doesn't have to guess what you actually mean, then that's useful. I had to ask question after question to find out what you actually meant. I hope in your profession as a notary public you make it easier for people to understand you.

Far less elegant

Posted Oct 24, 2010 22:29 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Why bother, it's like punching a tar pit (and I've been there). I sure hope that jthill avoids tar pits in his profession with the same elegance that he has done here.