[fosscomm] DEADLINE for FOSSCOM position on Draft Policy: 10.00 AM July July 9th.

Raj Mathur raju at linux-delhi.org
Thu Jul 9 09:10:16 PDT 2009


On Thursday 09 Jul 2009, Praveen A wrote:
> 2009/7/8 Guru गुरु <guru at itforchange.net>:
> > 1. I agree with Pravin's editing help and substantive inputs from
> > all, to put the FOSSCOMM statement out to Govt etc over next few
> > days (traveling today but will be back tom morning)
>
> "More than one standard in a domain must be deprecated strongly and
> convincing technical reasons must be provided before implementation
> of dual or multiple standards is considered."
>
> I suggest we remove this sentence as it considerably weakens our
> stand - "convincing technical reasons" would provide a loop hole for
> introducing multiple standards.

Fair enough -- I'd added that assuming that multiple standards were a 
requirement in some domain(s).  If that's not the case, then the 
statement is invalidated.

> Also I think mentioning of China's efforts to introduce compulsory
> licensing for patents in standards would add to the argument against
> allowing patent encumbered standards. It shows we are going in the
> opposite direction by allowing standards without a royalty free
> patent grant in the policy as opposed to China's efforts to
> compulsorily license any patents in a standard.

Not too clear about this -- are we saying that we should be doing right 
what China has done wrong?  What is compulsory licensing of patents 
anyway?

In general, given the choice, if we have to contrast my vote would be 
for contrasting with specific ills (and examples thereof) of encumbered 
or multiple standards rather than pointing out what other countries have 
done wrong; the latter tends to promote a contentious image in the 
viewer's mind.

> In case a critical standard needs a patent license for
> implementation, India should consider compulsory licensing in the
> national interest as a way of using a particular standard.

Could have differing points of view about this, mainly based on 
jurisdiction.  For instance, if standard FOO is compulsorily licensed 
from company BAR, does that benefit extend to all citizens of India?  
How about resident non-citizens of India?  Non-resident citizens?  By 
compulsorily licensing a closed standard do we run the risk of becoming 
incompatible with other countries who adopt purely open standard BAZ 
that competes with FOO?  Who is allowed to make software that implements 
standard FOO without royalty -- only Indian companies, or any 
organisation whose software is used in India?  And if the latter, then 
isn't that a blanket invitation to all FOSS developers world-wide to use 
standard FOO royalty-free (a developer can always find one person in 
India who uses his/her software :)

Perhaps these queries are based on an incomplete/incorrect understanding 
of compulsory licensing, would be glad to be corrected if that is the 
case.

Regards,

-- Raj
-- 
Raj Mathur                raju at kandalaya.org      http://kandalaya.org/
       GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5  0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/   ||   It is the mind that moves




More information about the network mailing list