Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Jan 2013 21:17 UTC
Permalink for comment 549832
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-29
Just like you can't call Android development an open process, you can't call EAS protocol an open standard.
Microsoft would need to let other people make contributions/comments in the development process of EAS.
Really, the only thing that would relate to patents in this case is if Microsoft had them undisclosed. Not all standards require a FRAND commitment(SD Association's exFAT is an example), but development has to be open to external contribution. That is what open stands for in open standards.
You raise good points. Do you agree/disagree on royalties disqualifying a standard from being "open"?
If EAS were developed in the open, with community participation, but still had essential patents disclosed (and licensed reasonably*), would you consider it open?
* reasonable licensing doesn't necessarily imply FRAND, though it helps, obviously.