<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I personally believe that open standards should be free to share
(not necessarily to modify) and to implement, and should be
available for download on the Internet, and also free to share in
hardcopy. Standard bodies might be allowed to charge a fee for
verifying compliance.<br>
<br>
Just like the Internet standards are available in the RFCs.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 06/01/2015 02:07 PM, Tom Blecher
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:220921433160429@web20g.yandex.ru" type="cite">
<div> </div>
<div>Hi,</div>
<div>unfortunately I stick still on the linguist layer at
determine what is the fsf position to standards such as</div>
<div>din, iso and the like.</div>
<div><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard</a></div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing</a></div>
<div>
<blockquote><span
style="color:#252525;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:22.4px;text-align:start;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;display:inline
!important;float:none;background-color:#ffffff;"> but
the modalities discriminate against a whole category of
intangible goods such as<span> </span></span></blockquote>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software"
style="text-decoration:underline;color:#0b0080;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:22.4px;text-align:start;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;background:none
#ffffff;" title="Free software">free software</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing#cite_note-6"
style="text-decoration:none;color:#0b0080;white-space:nowrap;background:none;"><span>[</span>6<span>]</span></a></div>
<div>
<blockquote><span
style="color:#252525;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:22.4px;text-align:start;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;display:inline
!important;float:none;background-color:#ffffff;"> The<span> </span></span></blockquote>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation"
style="text-decoration:none;color:#0b0080;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:22.4px;text-align:start;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;background:none
#ffffff;" title="Free Software Foundation">Free Software
Foundation</a><span
style="color:#252525;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:22.4px;text-align:start;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;display:inline
!important;float:none;background-color:#ffffff;"><span> </span>suggests
the term "uniform fee only" (UFO) to reflect that such
"(F)RAND" licences are inherently discriminatory.</span></div>
<div>So if somebody can help me out?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1. is Din or p_iso to be considered as ufo?</div>
<div>1.1 is Din or p_iso considered fsf's fight against limited to
"patents". Cause DIN or such are not patents.</div>
<div>1.1.1 Anyway I find it rather simple reckoning how dirty DIn
harms the same way? No? Even the questions come up if a software
that integrates such drugs can be called GPL-compatible. Why?
Are there any duties of paying fee to propaganda complexes
whithin the GPL for a source code understanding user? No.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2. Is this output from standardization propagandists any
relevant in terms of "open standards", cause these cover
explicitly only "formats" and "protocols", which is "Din"
apparently neither nor.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>3. Is there maybe some middle wide recognition gap, where
propaganda causes fs-harming ufo-standardization to be still
unnoticed. to be overseen, to be even protected that way? Is it
that we are dealing with, actually? A forest for a tree problem?</div>
<div>3.1 It is that I am interpreting Nico's post: "interesting".
So what could be interesting or new specially in this issue for
you long timer?</div>
<div>3.2 is the document freedom day then claiming for non-ufo
standards in broader sense, including for example "DIN or ISO
Standards"?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thank you for an answer? And thanks you for any comment, it
would help me.</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>30.05.2015, 10:40, "Nico Rikken"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nico.rikken@fsfe.org"><nico.rikken@fsfe.org></a>:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Dear Tom,<br>
<br>
This has crossed my mind as well. Although I wasn't aware
about<br>
standardization organizations offering these standards free of
cost. In<br>
the Netherlands one related aspect has been taken to court,
namely that<br>
some of the laws refer to standards which aren't available
freely or<br>
free of cost. It was ruled that this was not particular issue,
as the<br>
cost was justifiable for setting and maintaining the
standards, and the<br>
standard was available in a non-discriminatory fashion (if I
remember<br>
correctly).<br>
<br>
The collection of standardization bodies are quite complex,
with<br>
national organizations, industry-specific organizations, and<br>
international organizations (ISO, EN, IEC), often approving
each other's<br>
standards. Coming from a power systems background, standards
defining<br>
electromechanical systems like fuses, power cables and circuit
breakers<br>
is very industry-specific and is mainly of interest to
manufacturers and<br>
system engineers, which then again are mostly larger
organizations.<br>
Somewhat remarkable my university has stopped adopting
standards because<br>
the little use in academics didn't justify the cost of the
license.<br>
<br>
The main difference with software standards, and web-standards
in<br>
particular seems to be that even individuals have the ability
to create<br>
a working product, as no industrial manufacturing process is
required.<br>
Adhering to closed, costly standards would be much more
significant,<br>
unless maybe a reference implementation (library) would be
available for<br>
use, removing the need for the actual standard to be read. So
the cost<br>
of common software standards is therefore required to be
approaching<br>
zero.<br>
<br>
Scott's writing on standard adoption explain the way in which
project<br>
can adopt standards and the many issues related to bringing
about open<br>
standards.<br>
<br>
I was reluctant to read an article by Gijs Hillenius in the
Dutch Linux<br>
Magazine regarding the updated Open Source strategy of the
European<br>
Commission, in which he pointed out that the EC was explicitly<br>
considering open standards in favor of other established
standards. I<br>
consider this to be the confirmation that not-open standards
are non<br>
preferable in relation to free software.<br>
<br>
As society seems to become more decentralized and dynamic, the<br>
conventional standardization model will be under ever more
pressure to<br>
lower the barriers of access, regarding cost, license of use,
and<br>
transparency of process.<br>
<br>
Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic. I'm very
interested to<br>
hear the viewpoints and findings of others on this as well.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Nico Rikken</p>
,
<p>_______________________________________________<br>
Discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Discussion@fsfeurope.org">Discussion@fsfeurope.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion">https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion</a></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Discussion@fsfeurope.org">Discussion@fsfeurope.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion">https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>