Comments on: Open Format: Free Format Definition, a proposal http://robertogaloppini.net/2006/12/05/open-format-a-proposal-for-a-free-format-definition/ “equally critical of proprietary and open source myths, advocating software choice beyond marketing and romanticism” Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:55:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Roberto Galoppini http://robertogaloppini.net/2006/12/05/open-format-a-proposal-for-a-free-format-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Roberto Galoppini Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:16:50 +0000 http://robertogaloppini.net/?p=18#comment-29 Many thanks Stefano, I just subscribed to that mailing-list. Many thanks Stefano, I just subscribed to that mailing-list.

]]> By: Stefano Maffulli http://robertogaloppini.net/2006/12/05/open-format-a-proposal-for-a-free-format-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Stefano Maffulli Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:55:38 +0000 http://robertogaloppini.net/?p=18#comment-27 I think you should join the discussion list for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Dynamic Coalition on Open Technical Standards. http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/openstds See you there :) I think you should join the discussion list for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Dynamic Coalition on Open Technical Standards. http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/openstds See you there :)

]]> By: Roberto Galoppini http://robertogaloppini.net/2006/12/05/open-format-a-proposal-for-a-free-format-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-17 Roberto Galoppini Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:11:33 +0000 http://robertogaloppini.net/?p=18#comment-17 I believe standardization organizations' policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) must ensure this. They might do it through patent covenant or releasing free software in order to create prior art and, if needed, be able to cope with patent litigations. Standardization organizations need resources, therefore certifications should be mandatory by law. I believe standardization organizations’ policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) must ensure this.
They might do it through patent covenant or releasing free software in order to create prior art and, if needed, be able to cope with patent litigations. Standardization organizations need resources, therefore certifications should be mandatory by law.

]]> By: Simo http://robertogaloppini.net/2006/12/05/open-format-a-proposal-for-a-free-format-definition/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Simo Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:18:58 +0000 http://robertogaloppini.net/?p=18#comment-15 It definitely make sense. I'd chop away Freedom n.1 as it is completely covered by 0/3. The only problem I see is: how do you enforce compliance with the definition? The specification itslef can be copyrighted, the trademark can be used to avoid abuse of the name and certification purposes. But the only way to have a sort of "copyleft" license on a specification I am afraid is through a patent covenant on an unavoidable patent that covers all the specification uses. Simo. It definitely make sense.
I’d chop away Freedom n.1 as it is completely covered by 0/3.

The only problem I see is: how do you enforce compliance with the definition?

The specification itslef can be copyrighted, the trademark can be used to avoid abuse of the name and certification purposes.
But the only way to have a sort of “copyleft” license on a specification I am afraid is through a patent covenant on an unavoidable patent that covers all the specification uses.

Simo.

]]>