"Submit your remarks about the usage of RAND term at Open Web Foundation," says the FFII regarding this draft from the Open Web Foundation. The deadline is today (still some hours left in the US). The draft in the page says "royalty free license to my Granted Claims on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" (RAND is not compatible with the GPL).
The web site specializes in publishing secret reports and leaked documents on religious, corporate or governmental, Wikileaks has posted a file showing a plan to curb the free software in Europe.
This file shows that Jonathan Zuck, president of Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) –an organization with close ties to Microsoft–, and founder of Americans for Technology Leadership, had influenced the change of working documents of the European Union.
That lobbies to exert pressure against the government institutions under their interests no doubt, and this document published by Wikileaks is clearly demonstrated.
The document in question is a work project developed by experts from the European Commission. This document has been modified by the ACT and Comptia organizations that have been percolating in several working groups.
These two associations are doing everything in their power to try to stifle free software strategy of the European Union, and helping Europe to create a successful proprietary software sector.
This publication shows how pressure groups influence or attempt to influence the decisions made by the European institutions, but in this case is particularly striking one of these groups trying to influence against free software (ACT) has close ties Microsoft, the largest seller of proprietary software in the world.
RT @marcopolom #Wikileaks publishes documents that show a plan to curb the free software in the European Union. http://trunc.it/bpkf0
Comments
Lawrence Rosen
2010-10-08 18:20:23
I would like to respond personally, though, to your comments. I suggest you read the agreements more carefully. We do not *recommend* RAND but merely *allow* it for any company or organization that still insists upon a RAND license instead of the copyright grant and patent non-assert in the CLA and OWFa.
We discussed this thoroughly in our committee during the drafting process. While none of us supported turning the CLA or OWFa into an actual RAND agreement, we were aware that some older and perhaps less FOSS-sensitive formal standards organizations still require RAND contributions. Our agreements make RAND available for them if they insist upon it. Everyone else, including the entire GPL community, can rely on the promises in the CLA and OWFa themselves, which go well beyond RAND!
By the way, the formal term used in our agreements is RAND-Z, not just RAND. For those old-fashioned organizations that still insist on RAND, they are also comforted by the fact that the RAND license -- if they request it -- will be at zero price.
Please don't assume, simply because our CLA and OWFa accommodated the needs of RAND-based organizations, that any of us on the committee or the Open Web Foundation board actually supports RAND licensing.
/Larry Rosen
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2010-10-08 19:45:26
Thanks for the quick response. It's delightful to hear that you will ensure Free/libre software remains compatible in a landscape which has increasingly cast a shadow on cooperation, using "*RAND-*"-like terms. Some companies are big proponents of RAND as a deliberate measure against competition which commoditises communication. We know that Tim B-L is not just an opposer of patents on the Web but also a facilitator of collaboration, which RAND impedes by imposing financial barriers.
twitter
2010-10-09 02:23:45