Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

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

* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

> In article <6avn1bF37depaU2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>  bbgruff <bbgruff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > In article <rtqoh5-ms5.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >  Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index