Thatâ€™s where you fail to understand ieaellnctutl property. Giving away a perpetual license does not equal abandoning your ieaellnctutl rights and property (particularly not in France, by the way).Talk about napping at the back of the classroom! You’re only telling this to a bunch of people who do Free Software, which is all about licensing your own work while retaining the copyright, contrary to the myths propagated by apologists and lobbyists for proprietary software.And Free Software, along with the rise of the Web, has exposed the notion of an open standard to a great deal more scrutiny than it had in previous decades. Back in the 1980s it may have been acceptable for one corporation to claim openness if it lets another corporation use its technology under some kind of mutual agreement witness stuff like OpenLook and Motif but as genuinely open software solutions have become widely available, people have come to demand similarly open standards, genuinely open and implementable by anyone without hindrance (and, as notes, without even having to ask if you’re allowed to). And such standards have been delivered by organisations like the World Wide Web Consortium.Now that the landscape has changed, it is dishonest to pitch RAND licensing, usually as part of the operation of a patent cartel, as some kind of criteria or prerequisite for an open standard. Indeed, particularly with the assertion of patents, RAND licensing is yet another tool to lock Free Software out of competitive situations when such software genuinely open software is seen as a competitive threat.Free Software demands real open standards so that those standards and genuine competition can be transparently upheld. In contrast, people and organisations who push patent-encumbered technologies into public standards seem to have some serious problems with things like competition and transparency.