>
> The rule is more '"No patent-free standards that require extra free
> software or codecs to be installed by judges." The implication,
> actually made explicit by Pierre, is that free software is difficult
> to install and buggy.
Ok. I was under the impression that the rule on the codecs followed from
that idea on free software and that it would also affect rules on other
software. If this is the case (and it does look to me like the rules and
reasoning behind them were changed a few times over this discussion) then
the final result isn't that bad in practice.
However; I still feel that sharing such opinions severely harms the
impression of a impartial review and thus the credibility of the
organisation. Without the appearance of impartial and unbiased review their
publication lacks any added relevance over blog-posts for sharing findings
and borrowing, renting or otherwise acquiring a space to put them in
practice.
Kas.
Received on Tue Jan 18 2011 - 15:17:27 GMT