Dear Tom,
This has crossed my mind as well. Although I wasn't aware about standardization organizations offering these standards free of cost. In the Netherlands one related aspect has been taken to court, namely that some of the laws refer to standards which aren't available freely or free of cost. It was ruled that this was not particular issue, as the cost was justifiable for setting and maintaining the standards, and the standard was available in a non-discriminatory fashion (if I remember correctly).
The collection of standardization bodies are quite complex, with national organizations, industry-specific organizations, and international organizations (ISO, EN, IEC), often approving each other's standards. Coming from a power systems background, standards defining electromechanical systems like fuses, power cables and circuit breakers is very industry-specific and is mainly of interest to manufacturers and system engineers, which then again are mostly larger organizations. Somewhat remarkable my university has stopped adopting standards because the little use in academics didn't justify the cost of the license.
The main difference with software standards, and web-standards in particular seems to be that even individuals have the ability to create a working product, as no industrial manufacturing process is required. Adhering to closed, costly standards would be much more significant, unless maybe a reference implementation (library) would be available for use, removing the need for the actual standard to be read. So the cost of common software standards is therefore required to be approaching zero.
Scott's writing on standard adoption explain the way in which project can adopt standards and the many issues related to bringing about open standards.
I was reluctant to read an article by Gijs Hillenius in the Dutch Linux Magazine regarding the updated Open Source strategy of the European Commission, in which he pointed out that the EC was explicitly considering open standards in favor of other established standards. I consider this to be the confirmation that not-open standards are non preferable in relation to free software.
As society seems to become more decentralized and dynamic, the conventional standardization model will be under ever more pressure to lower the barriers of access, regarding cost, license of use, and transparency of process.
Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic. I'm very interested to hear the viewpoints and findings of others on this as well.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken
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.
Just like the Internet standards are available in the RFCs.
On 06/01/2015 02:07 PM, Tom Blecher wrote:
Hi, unfortunately I stick still on the linguist layer at determine what is the fsf position to standards such as din, iso and the like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
but the modalities discriminate against a whole category of intangible goods such asfree software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing#cite_note-6
TheFree Software Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundationsuggests the term "uniform fee only" (UFO) to reflect that such "(F)RAND" licences are inherently discriminatory. So if somebody can help me out?
- is Din or p_iso to be considered as ufo?
1.1 is Din or p_iso considered fsf's fight against limited to "patents". Cause DIN or such are not patents. 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. 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. 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? 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? 3.2 is the document freedom day then claiming for non-ufo standards in broader sense, including for example "DIN or ISO Standards"? Thank you for an answer? And thanks you for any comment, it would help me. 30.05.2015, 10:40, "Nico Rikken" nico.rikken@fsfe.org:
Dear Tom,
This has crossed my mind as well. Although I wasn't aware about standardization organizations offering these standards free of cost. In the Netherlands one related aspect has been taken to court, namely that some of the laws refer to standards which aren't available freely or free of cost. It was ruled that this was not particular issue, as the cost was justifiable for setting and maintaining the standards, and the standard was available in a non-discriminatory fashion (if I remember correctly).
The collection of standardization bodies are quite complex, with national organizations, industry-specific organizations, and international organizations (ISO, EN, IEC), often approving each other's standards. Coming from a power systems background, standards defining electromechanical systems like fuses, power cables and circuit breakers is very industry-specific and is mainly of interest to manufacturers and system engineers, which then again are mostly larger organizations. Somewhat remarkable my university has stopped adopting standards because the little use in academics didn't justify the cost of the license.
The main difference with software standards, and web-standards in particular seems to be that even individuals have the ability to create a working product, as no industrial manufacturing process is required. Adhering to closed, costly standards would be much more significant, unless maybe a reference implementation (library) would be available for use, removing the need for the actual standard to be read. So the cost of common software standards is therefore required to be approaching zero.
Scott's writing on standard adoption explain the way in which project can adopt standards and the many issues related to bringing about open standards.
I was reluctant to read an article by Gijs Hillenius in the Dutch Linux Magazine regarding the updated Open Source strategy of the European Commission, in which he pointed out that the EC was explicitly considering open standards in favor of other established standards. I consider this to be the confirmation that not-open standards are non preferable in relation to free software.
As society seems to become more decentralized and dynamic, the conventional standardization model will be under ever more pressure to lower the barriers of access, regarding cost, license of use, and transparency of process.
Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic. I'm very interested to hear the viewpoints and findings of others on this as well.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken
,
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org mailto:Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 1 Jun 2015, at 15:52, Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645@yandex.com wrote:
Hi Carsten, what do you mean. Standard bodies might be allowed to charge a fee for verifying compliance. "charge a fee" to whom? For example "compliance" with what?
Typically where there is regulatory compliance needed for deploying software, the software needs to be checked for compliance to the standard by a registered testing agent. This usually incurs a fee, after which the software is certified compliant and thus suitable for deployment. (This does provide some challenges to FOSS where the culture is one of continuous releases.)
For example, software used for the management of clinical trial data in the UK is required to be tested against a set of standards before being allowed for use with hospital patient data. Some FOSS solutions such as OpenClinica pay for this certification.
In other industries, “badging” for compliance is an optional requirement and mostly FOSS doesn’t bother. There are also some SSOs that offer free self-certification using a self-test harness. When I was implementing a W3C spec for an ASF project I just published our raw test harness results on the web so users could judge the state of compliance for themselves (the tests were all implemented in JUnit); closed source vendors on the other hand could - and did - just issue a statement saying they passed everything! Which was funny as several of the tests had bugs and were impossible to pass unless your implementation was broken :D
Ok: Let us take the rfcs. Who could charge a fee to who_? And for what. When? Each time reading them? A annual fee? How much? Let us say a thousand € per year and document, as it is indeed the case with ISO or DIN?
The business models for formal SSOs such as ISO, DIN, BSI etc are pretty old fashioned publishing models. They charge a fee for the document; there is no annual fee or any fee associated with the implementation of the standard. So only the developer interested in reading the standard would need to pay; in fact, to implement a standard you don’t need to even read it if its embedded in an existing library, or there is sufficient freely-available general guidance material to implement it.
Thanks for some clarification in advance.
Ps: Hm, do I have the impression that "open standards" could grow a good candidate for: wait.. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
Well yes. “Open” can cover a multitude of sins and virtues in the standards world. Many of the more “open” and “agile” freely-available standards folks like to use on the web implement what I like to think of as the “golden rule” governance approach - you bring the gold, you make the rules! - which favours the large vendors and service organisations (Google, FB etc). Whereas the rather closed-looking formal BSI, CEN and DIN processes are ironically quite open to engagement by individuals and SMEs, but the resulting published standards cost money to buy. YMMV.
- Scott
? Ah I see the word "open" is already in.. thunderclap. keep healthy.
01.06.2015, 14:20, "Carsten Agger" agger@modspil.dk:
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.
Just like the Internet standards are available in the RFCs.
On 06/01/2015 02:07 PM, Tom Blecher wrote:
Hi, unfortunately I stick still on the linguist layer at determine what is the fsf position to standards such as din, iso and the like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing but the modalities discriminate against a whole category of intangible goods such as free software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing#cite_note-6 The Free Software Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation suggests the term "uniform fee only" (UFO) to reflect that such "(F)RAND" licences are inherently discriminatory. So if somebody can help me out?
- is Din or p_iso to be considered as ufo?
1.1 is Din or p_iso considered fsf's fight against limited to "patents". Cause DIN or such are not patents. 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.
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.
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?
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? 3.2 is the document freedom day then claiming for non-ufo standards in broader sense, including for example "DIN or ISO Standards"?
Thank you for an answer? And thanks you for any comment, it would help me.
30.05.2015, 10:40, "Nico Rikken" nico.rikken@fsfe.org mailto:nico.rikken@fsfe.org:
Dear Tom,
This has crossed my mind as well. Although I wasn't aware about standardization organizations offering these standards free of cost. In the Netherlands one related aspect has been taken to court, namely that some of the laws refer to standards which aren't available freely or free of cost. It was ruled that this was not particular issue, as the cost was justifiable for setting and maintaining the standards, and the standard was available in a non-discriminatory fashion (if I remember correctly).
The collection of standardization bodies are quite complex, with national organizations, industry-specific organizations, and international organizations (ISO, EN, IEC), often approving each other's standards. Coming from a power systems background, standards defining electromechanical systems like fuses, power cables and circuit breakers is very industry-specific and is mainly of interest to manufacturers and system engineers, which then again are mostly larger organizations. Somewhat remarkable my university has stopped adopting standards because the little use in academics didn't justify the cost of the license.
The main difference with software standards, and web-standards in particular seems to be that even individuals have the ability to create a working product, as no industrial manufacturing process is required. Adhering to closed, costly standards would be much more significant, unless maybe a reference implementation (library) would be available for use, removing the need for the actual standard to be read. So the cost of common software standards is therefore required to be approaching zero.
Scott's writing on standard adoption explain the way in which project can adopt standards and the many issues related to bringing about open standards.
I was reluctant to read an article by Gijs Hillenius in the Dutch Linux Magazine regarding the updated Open Source strategy of the European Commission, in which he pointed out that the EC was explicitly considering open standards in favor of other established standards. I consider this to be the confirmation that not-open standards are non preferable in relation to free software.
As society seems to become more decentralized and dynamic, the conventional standardization model will be under ever more pressure to lower the barriers of access, regarding cost, license of use, and transparency of process.
Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic. I'm very interested to hear the viewpoints and findings of others on this as well.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken
, _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org mailto:Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org mailto:Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
, _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org mailto:Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com scottbw@apache.org http://scottbw.wordpress.com @scottbw
Hello Scott, Nico, Michael, and others reading,
I studied now your previous statements, thank you for your points first. I think I understood it all very well. No doubt.
So straight forward for the finding on the head: So the propagandist story goes: Some talked of fs as a virus. You know that. For the virus the nature has some remedy. This strategy in loosely words is: alcohol. It kills all virus, even the last one. Be sure! So DIN is for example a master of hygiene. How does it do that? Simply by charging a fee for each specification document. The point that you and might be the rest on this planet do not acknowledge or probably accept the lethal effect on free software, just proves how good this alcohol is or less figuratively how evidently efficient the propaganda is. - Hey are we dealing with propaganda, yes? So may it matter that they are deemed damn powerful imho? Furthermore: So lets leave the picture of disease which it in not. Cause in the end it donates life and not how it is defamed that it devastated whole regions. What hygiene in this means can be fitter denominated as what I would call: free software deserts. That dramatic is the situation we face. And not randomly everywhere DIN has its fingers in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_... nice all free software free. So back to the topic. I said desert: How is that any relevant to us, one might ask in the words of Micheal:
The issue of money for the paper really seems very small against all the
possible pitfalls for implementing them. Relevant is first that it is lethal for the free software, what could be worse? All pitfalls together? No! Nothing! Second: Have you once put into account how much human beings had to spend a whole work live far from free software. I mean considering the above list? Millions? Is that an argument for relevance? And might for each of them govern: what Mr. Stallman said on that there is no excuse for using no free software? So in result we gain a heavy duty to help our fellows, we who we are supposed to as "promoters of free software". What keeps seeming odd, that you and other experts have a strong contrary opinion on it.
On the good guys thing: 02.06.2015, ür10:37, "Scott Wilson" scott.wilson@it.ox.ac.uk:
The business models for formal SSOs such as ISO, DIN, BSI etc are pretty old fashioned publishing models. They charge a fee for the document; there is no annual fee or any fee associated with the implementation of the standard.
This is not not certain. I remember of annual fee.
So only the developer interested in reading the standard would need to pay; in fact, to implement a standard you don’t need to even read it if its embedded in an existing library, or there is sufficient freely-available general guidance material to implement it
As a matter of fact it is written in human language. And as a matter you get sued if have not read it. You get tarred and feathered if you skip reading it in thee end of the day, for example if you missed one another senseless update. Excuse my strong language! I stop here, but will give some more arguments in advance about why there is effectively no way around of having them read all thoroughly, for developers and for user, too.
any fee associated with the implementation of the standard.
I wonder how you could state that. Well, there is no theoretic cost item for "implementation" like with patients, thats true. And I guess it is what you wanted to express. But effectively they sue you, when they prove that you had worked at that time on your program well knowing that you had no chance to do so without paper. And: Libraries? Definitely that's no way through. Can you give an example? Believe not, as there is no live in the desert.
@Nico You said that you where glad that I address this subject in an earlier post.
I say you had reason cause I believe that we are stuck in a broken speech maze, where we can not focus who prevents, who discriminates our free software. Interim questions: -One needs to note that their is no point in support actual free software projects, are there are none. So do we have communicated a strategy for that? And have we a will to tackle that? -And surely one might be frightened about those industry bullies, I swear. They will lose the jobs with free software, no? Have we communicated a strategy on that? And have we a will? I doubt that.
So I will end the post with some findings had gathered and that I consider clarifying: On where the fee stems fromy : The fee stem from 3 sources: 1. They charge for copies, and if they are hostile against fs, it is lethal for it, yet. Point. 2. Patents. Here the standardization bodies are presented as Mr. Good Guys. For example in Nico's last post. They can not because of point 1, yet. The criticism against their charging, such things as UFO, could be lanced with the same right at point 1. There is nothing patent specific but fee specific in it. 3. A testing fee. As Scott pointed out. For us shall govern: fee is fee. And that no point in tolerating it, and not to tolerate too early by no means.
So here are two points why intervention is to justify: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_... 1. "(Kauf- und Werkvertragsrecht) als Entscheidungshilfe. Hierbei besteht grundsätzlich die Vermutung, dass die DIN-Normen den anerkannten Regeln der Technik entsprechen" It is that judges effectively rely on them at literally any occasion. 2. "wenn Gesetze, Verordnungen, Erlasse oder amtliche Bekanntmachungen auf sie verweisen, ohne ihren Wortlaut wiederzugeben" It is that state laws link into them, charging the reader. hoo . No question, there had been fights on that in 2003.
And now? Lost foreseenly and seemingly ridiculous in the maze?
Questions: -How can we free all those humans from the free software desert zone, asks I? Comments? -What is it that prevents us from healing the desert bug?
Hope that I answered all question posed, If something left open, do not bother to ask twice. (; Thanks in advance.
02.06.2015, ür10:37, "Scott Wilson" scott.wilson@it.ox.ac.uk:
On 1 Jun 2015, at 15:52, Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645@yandex.com wrote:
Hi Carsten, what do you mean.
Standard bodies might be allowed to charge a fee for verifying compliance.
"charge a fee" to whom? For example "compliance" with what?
Typically where there is regulatory compliance needed for deploying software, the software needs to be checked for compliance to the standard by a registered testing agent. This usually incurs a fee, after which the software is certified compliant and thus suitable for deployment. (This does provide some challenges to FOSS where the culture is one of continuous releases.)
For example, software used for the management of clinical trial data in the UK is required to be tested against a set of standards before being allowed for use with hospital patient data. Some FOSS solutions such as OpenClinica pay for this certification.
In other industries, “badging” for compliance is an optional requirement and mostly FOSS doesn’t bother. There are also some SSOs that offer free self-certification using a self-test harness. When I was implementing a W3C spec for an ASF project I just published our raw test harness results on the web so users could judge the state of compliance for themselves (the tests were all implemented in JUnit); closed source vendors on the other hand could - and did - just issue a statement saying they passed everything! Which was funny as several of the tests had bugs and were impossible to pass unless your implementation was broken :D
Ok: Let us take the rfcs. Who could charge a fee to who_? And for what. When? Each time reading them? A annual fee? How much? Let us say a thousand € per year and document, as it is indeed the case with ISO or DIN?
The business models for formal SSOs such as ISO, DIN, BSI etc are pretty old fashioned publishing models. They charge a fee for the document; there is no annual fee or any fee associated with the implementation of the standard. So only the developer interested in reading the standard would need to pay; in fact, to implement a standard you don’t need to even read it if its embedded in an existing library, or there is sufficient freely-available general guidance material to implement it.
Thanks for some clarification in advance.
Ps: Hm, do I have the impression that "open standards" could grow a good candidate for: wait.. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html
Well yes. “Open” can cover a multitude of sins and virtues in the standards world. Many of the more “open” and “agile” freely-available standards folks like to use on the web implement what I like to think of as the “golden rule” governance approach - you bring the gold, you make the rules! - which favours the large vendors and service organisations (Google, FB etc). Whereas the rather closed-looking formal BSI, CEN and DIN processes are ironically quite open to engagement by individuals and SMEs, but the resulting published standards cost money to buy. YMMV.
- Scott
? Ah I see the word "open" is already in.. thunderclap. keep healthy.
01.06.2015, 14:20, "Carsten Agger" agger@modspil.dk:
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.
Just like the Internet standards are available in the RFCs.
On 06/01/2015 02:07 PM, Tom Blecher wrote:
Hi, unfortunately I stick still on the linguist layer at determine what is the fsf position to standards such as din, iso and the like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
but the modalities discriminate against a whole category of intangible goods such as
free software[6]
The
Free Software Foundation suggests the term "uniform fee only" (UFO) to reflect that such "(F)RAND" licences are inherently discriminatory. So if somebody can help me out?
- is Din or p_iso to be considered as ufo?
1.1 is Din or p_iso considered fsf's fight against limited to "patents". Cause DIN or such are not patents. 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.
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.
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?
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? 3.2 is the document freedom day then claiming for non-ufo standards in broader sense, including for example "DIN or ISO Standards"?
Thank you for an answer? And thanks you for any comment, it would help me.
30.05.2015, 10:40, "Nico Rikken" nico.rikken@fsfe.org:
Dear Tom,
This has crossed my mind as well. Although I wasn't aware about standardization organizations offering these standards free of cost. In the Netherlands one related aspect has been taken to court, namely that some of the laws refer to standards which aren't available freely or free of cost. It was ruled that this was not particular issue, as the cost was justifiable for setting and maintaining the standards, and the standard was available in a non-discriminatory fashion (if I remember correctly).
The collection of standardization bodies are quite complex, with national organizations, industry-specific organizations, and international organizations (ISO, EN, IEC), often approving each other's standards. Coming from a power systems background, standards defining electromechanical systems like fuses, power cables and circuit breakers is very industry-specific and is mainly of interest to manufacturers and system engineers, which then again are mostly larger organizations. Somewhat remarkable my university has stopped adopting standards because the little use in academics didn't justify the cost of the license.
The main difference with software standards, and web-standards in particular seems to be that even individuals have the ability to create a working product, as no industrial manufacturing process is required. Adhering to closed, costly standards would be much more significant, unless maybe a reference implementation (library) would be available for use, removing the need for the actual standard to be read. So the cost of common software standards is therefore required to be approaching zero.
Scott's writing on standard adoption explain the way in which project can adopt standards and the many issues related to bringing about open standards.
I was reluctant to read an article by Gijs Hillenius in the Dutch Linux Magazine regarding the updated Open Source strategy of the European Commission, in which he pointed out that the EC was explicitly considering open standards in favor of other established standards. I consider this to be the confirmation that not-open standards are non preferable in relation to free software.
As society seems to become more decentralized and dynamic, the conventional standardization model will be under ever more pressure to lower the barriers of access, regarding cost, license of use, and transparency of process.
Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic. I'm very interested to hear the viewpoints and findings of others on this as well.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken ,
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
,
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com scottbw@apache.org http://scottbw.wordpress.com @scottbw
Hello Scott, Nico, Michael, and others reading,
I studied now your previous statements, thank you for your points first. I think I understood it all very well. No doubt.
So straight forward for the finding on the head: So the propagandist story goes: Some talked of fs as a virus. You know that. For the virus the nature has some remedy. This strategy in loosely words is: alcohol. It kills all virus, even the last one. Be sure! So DIN is for example a master of hygiene. How does it do that? Simply by charging a fee for each specification document. The point that you and might be the rest on this planet do not acknowledge or probably accept the lethal effect on free software, just proves how good this alcohol is or less figuratively how evidently efficient the propaganda is. - Hey are we dealing with propaganda, yes? So may it matter that they are deemed damn powerful imho? Furthermore: So lets leave the picture of disease which it in not. Cause in the end it donates life and not how it is defamed that it devastated whole regions. What hygiene in this means can be fitter denominated as what I would call: free software deserts. That dramatic is the situation we face. And not randomly everywhere DIN has its fingers in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_... nice all free software free. So back to the topic. I said desert: How is that any relevant to us, one might ask in the words of Micheal:
The issue of money for the paper really seems very small against all the
possible pitfalls for implementing them. Relevant is first that it is lethal for the free software, what could be worse? All pitfalls together? No! Nothing! Second: Have you once put into account how much human beings had to spend a whole work live far from free software. I mean considering the above list? Millions? Is that an argument for relevance? And might for each of them govern: what Mr. Stallman said on that there is no excuse for using no free software? So in result we gain a heavy duty to help our fellows, we who we are supposed to as "promoters of free software". What keeps seeming odd, that you and other experts have a strong contrary opinion on it.
On the good guys thing: 02.06.2015, ür10:37, "Scott Wilson" scott.wilson@it.ox.ac.uk:
The business models for formal SSOs such as ISO, DIN, BSI etc are pretty old fashioned publishing models. They charge a fee for the document; there is no annual fee or any fee associated with the implementation of the standard.
This is not not certain. I remember of annual fee.
So only the developer interested in reading the standard would need to pay; in fact, to implement a standard you don’t need to even read it if its embedded in an existing library, or there is sufficient freely-available general guidance material to implement it
As a matter of fact it is written in human language. And as a matter you get sued if have not read it. You get tarred and feathered if you skip reading it in thee end of the day, for example if you missed one another senseless update. Excuse my strong language! I stop here, but will give some more arguments in advance about why there is effectively no way around of having them read all thoroughly, for developers and for user, too.
any fee associated with the implementation of the standard.
I wonder how you could state that. Well, there is no theoretic cost item for "implementation" like with patients, thats true. And I guess it is what you wanted to express. But effectively they sue you, when they prove that you had worked at that time on your program well knowing that you had no chance to do so without paper. And: Libraries? Definitely that's no way through. Can you give an example? Believe not, as there is no live in the desert.
@Nico You said that you where glad that I address this subject in an earlier post.
I say you had reason cause I believe that we are stuck in a broken speech maze, where we can not focus who prevents, who discriminates our free software. Interim questions: -One needs to note that their is no point in support actual free software projects, are there are none. So do we have communicated a strategy for that? And have we a will to tackle that? -And surely one might be frightened about those industry bullies, I swear. They will lose the jobs with free software, no? Have we communicated a strategy on that? And have we a will? I doubt that.
So I will end the post with some findings had gathered and that I consider clarifying: On where the fee stems fromy : The fee stem from 3 sources: 1. They charge for copies, and if they are hostile against fs, it is lethal for it, yet. Point. 2. Patents. Here the standardization bodies are presented as Mr. Good Guys. For example in Nico's last post. They can not because of point 1, yet. The criticism against their charging, such things as UFO, could be lanced with the same right at point 1. There is nothing patent specific but fee specific in it. 3. A testing fee. As Scott pointed out. For us shall govern: fee is fee. And that no point in tolerating it, and not to tolerate too early by no means.
So here are two points why intervention is to justify: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_... 1. "(Kauf- und Werkvertragsrecht) als Entscheidungshilfe. Hierbei besteht grundsätzlich die Vermutung, dass die DIN-Normen den anerkannten Regeln der Technik entsprechen" It is that judges effectively rely on them at literally any occasion. 2. "wenn Gesetze, Verordnungen, Erlasse oder amtliche Bekanntmachungen auf sie verweisen, ohne ihren Wortlaut wiederzugeben" It is that state laws link into them, charging the reader. hoo . No question, there had been fights on that in 2003.
And now? Lost foreseenly and seemingly ridiculous in the maze?
Questions: -How can we free all those humans from the free software desert zone, asks I? Comments? -What is it that prevents us from healing the desert bug?
Hope that I answered all question posed, If something left open, do not bother to ask twice. (; Thanks in advance.
Hi there, - excuse me; reread my post and I found that their are to much mistakes in it, to be understood easily. So gonna correct it once more. Some sentences are syntactically not correct, sometimes words are missing. It was late in the night and was anxious. - secondly takes some times to read the reply. But promise to go later over it. Thank you for replying so far. - Feel free criticizing me in the meanwhile, I deserve it( often enough)! (; Regards
-------- Beginning of forwarded message -------- 07.06.2015, 01:41, "Tom Blecher" blecher.tom201645@yandex.com:
Hello Scott, Nico, Michael, and others reading,
I studied now your previous statements, thank you for your points first. I think I understood it all very well. No doubt.
So straight forward for the finding on the head: So the propagandist story goes: Some talked of fs as a virus. You know that. For the virus the nature has some remedy. This strategy in loosely words is: alcohol. It kills all virus, even the last one. Be sure! So DIN is for example a master of hygiene. How does it do that? Simply by charging a fee for each specification document. The point that you and might be the rest on this planet do not acknowledge or probably accept the lethal effect on free software, just proves how good this alcohol is or less figuratively how evidently efficient the propaganda is. - Hey are we dealing with propaganda, yes? So may it matter that they are deemed damn powerful imho? Furthermore: So lets leave the picture of disease which it in not. Cause in the end it donates life and not how it is defamed that it devastated whole regions. What hygiene in this means can be fitter denominated as what I would call: free software deserts. That dramatic is the situation we face. And not randomly everywhere DIN has its fingers in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_... nice all free software free. So back to the topic. I said desert: How is that any relevant to us, one might ask in the words of Micheal:
The issue of money for the paper really seems very small against all the
possible pitfalls for implementing them. Relevant is first that it is lethal for the free software, what could be worse? All pitfalls together? No! Nothing! Second: Have you once put into account how much human beings had to spend a whole work live far from free software. I mean considering the above list? Millions? Is that an argument for relevance? And might for each of them govern: what Mr. Stallman said on that there is no excuse for using no free software? So in result we gain a heavy duty to help our fellows, we who we are supposed to as "promoters of free software". What keeps seeming odd, that you and other experts have a strong contrary opinion on it.
On the good guys thing: 02.06.2015, ür10:37, "Scott Wilson" scott.wilson@it.ox.ac.uk:
The business models for formal SSOs such as ISO, DIN, BSI etc are pretty old fashioned publishing models. They charge a fee for the document; there is no annual fee or any fee associated with the implementation of the standard.
This is not not certain. I remember of annual fee.
So only the developer interested in reading the standard would need to pay; in fact, to implement a standard you don’t need to even read it if its embedded in an existing library, or there is sufficient freely-available general guidance material to implement it
As a matter of fact it is written in human language. And as a matter you get sued if have not read it. You get tarred and feathered if you skip reading it in thee end of the day, for example if you missed one another senseless update. Excuse my strong language! I stop here, but will give some more arguments in advance about why there is effectively no way around of having them read all thoroughly, for developers and for user, too.
any fee associated with the implementation of the standard.
I wonder how you could state that. Well, there is no theoretic cost item for "implementation" like with patients, thats true. And I guess it is what you wanted to express. But effectively they sue you, when they prove that you had worked at that time on your program well knowing that you had no chance to do so without paper. And: Libraries? Definitely that's no way through. Can you give an example? Believe not, as there is no live in the desert.
@Nico You said that you where glad that I address this subject in an earlier post.
I say you had reason cause I believe that we are stuck in a broken speech maze, where we can not focus who prevents, who discriminates our free software. Interim questions: -One needs to note that their is no point in support actual free software projects, are there are none. So do we have communicated a strategy for that? And have we a will to tackle that? -And surely one might be frightened about those industry bullies, I swear. They will lose the jobs with free software, no? Have we communicated a strategy on that? And have we a will? I doubt that.
So I will end the post with some findings had gathered and that I consider clarifying: On where the fee stems fromy : The fee stem from 3 sources: 1. They charge for copies, and if they are hostile against fs, it is lethal for it, yet. Point. 2. Patents. Here the standardization bodies are presented as Mr. Good Guys. For example in Nico's last post. They can not because of point 1, yet. The criticism against their charging, such things as UFO, could be lanced with the same right at point 1. There is nothing patent specific but fee specific in it. 3. A testing fee. As Scott pointed out. For us shall govern: fee is fee. And that no point in tolerating it, and not to tolerate too early by no means.
So here are two points why intervention is to justify: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_... 1. "(Kauf- und Werkvertragsrecht) als Entscheidungshilfe. Hierbei besteht grundsätzlich die Vermutung, dass die DIN-Normen den anerkannten Regeln der Technik entsprechen" It is that judges effectively rely on them at literally any occasion. 2. "wenn Gesetze, Verordnungen, Erlasse oder amtliche Bekanntmachungen auf sie verweisen, ohne ihren Wortlaut wiederzugeben" It is that state laws link into them, charging the reader. hoo . No question, there had been fights on that in 2003.
And now? Lost foreseenly and seemingly ridiculous in the maze?
Questions: -How can we free all those humans from the free software desert zone, asks I? Comments? -What is it that prevents us from healing the desert bug?
Hope that I answered all question posed, If something left open, do not bother to ask twice. (; Thanks in advance.
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion -------- End of forwarded message --------
Dear Tom,
That was quite an elaborate statement, thanks. I don't share your view on hostility. Copyright, patents and standardization practices have been around longer than actual software. As such the bodies cover more fields than just those related to software. As the matter of fact, my knowledge about standards mainly originates from non-software standards. In the software-related fields however the issue of free software should be known and addressed by now, I certainly agree with you on that.
Regarding your point on testing, as far as I know, testing specifications are defined, and testing organizations often request fees regarding the tests, but anyone can start testing according to the specifications. Or is this also regulated?
More generic I've seen the standardization process at work from afar and to me the process seems to be quite transparant. In the Netherlands the standardization body NEN is in charge of developing standards. The described approach [1] covers the forming of a committee which will develop a new standard, which will be up for public review, followed by publication and implementation. If the standard becomes outdated or needs other adjustments, the process will start over (this generally seems to happen every few years). I haven't yet gathered knowledge on how other bodies handle reaching consensus, so I can't really compare. [1] https://www.nen.nl/Normontwikkeling/Wat-is-normalisatie/De-7-stappen-van-nor...
In the meantime I've contacted a few people involved in NEN and I've managed to get some information, but I still have some detailed questions in queue. I was told patents can't block implementation, and related patents should be known at the moment of standardization. However: what happens when patents are filed after the standard is drafted? and is a non-discriminatory low-cost license fee for each implementation acceptable? To me these seem to be the more fundamental questions for which I still lack an answer. This especially interesting in that I know of a GPLv3 client-side implementation of a standard. If this standard is indeed subject to license fees, there seems to be a legal conflict.
Regarding your point on strategy, I guess practical advise would be helpful to ease implementation and avoid conflicts. At least I assume you're referring to the interest of programmers. I guess such a strategy would have to cover: 0) how to stand against any discrimination, in order to prevent the upcoming points. 1) how to legally retrieve free-of-cost and free-for-use information on a standard (including reverse-engineering). 2) how to discover, handle or circumvent patent and copyright issues. 3) how to guarantee the freedoms with redistribution. 4) how to monitor external developments to prevent getting into new conflicts.
I'm missing the expertise to fill de details, and furthermore it can be specific to local legislation, so that would be a task for experts to describe.
In a way your last paragraph describes both the issue and a possible solution to the issue: standards have become essential to our society and are even included in legislation. As such enabling the forming of standards seems to be a governmental act. Not so much the content itself, but rather about the process and the eventual standard. At the very least freedom in achieving and implementing the standards should be guaranteed, to avoid any discrimination.
I'm curious to hear your upcoming post. I have come to find this topic rather interesting.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken
On 13 Jun 2015, at 10:12, Nico Rikken nico.rikken@fsfe.org wrote:
Dear Tom,
That was quite an elaborate statement, thanks. I don't share your view on hostility. Copyright, patents and standardization practices have been around longer than actual software. As such the bodies cover more fields than just those related to software. As the matter of fact, my knowledge about standards mainly originates from non-software standards. In the software-related fields however the issue of free software should be known and addressed by now, I certainly agree with you on that.
Regarding your point on testing, as far as I know, testing specifications are defined, and testing organizations often request fees regarding the tests, but anyone can start testing according to the specifications. Or is this also regulated?
More generic I've seen the standardization process at work from afar and to me the process seems to be quite transparant. In the Netherlands the standardization body NEN is in charge of developing standards. The described approach [1] covers the forming of a committee which will develop a new standard, which will be up for public review, followed by publication and implementation. If the standard becomes outdated or needs other adjustments, the process will start over (this generally seems to happen every few years). I haven't yet gathered knowledge on how other bodies handle reaching consensus, so I can't really compare. [1] https://www.nen.nl/Normontwikkeling/Wat-is-normalisatie/De-7-stappen-van-nor...
In the meantime I've contacted a few people involved in NEN and I've managed to get some information, but I still have some detailed questions in queue. I was told patents can't block implementation, and related patents should be known at the moment of standardization. However: what happens when patents are filed after the standard is drafted? and is a non-discriminatory low-cost license fee for each implementation acceptable? To me these seem to be the more fundamental questions for which I still lack an answer. This especially interesting in that I know of a GPLv3 client-side implementation of a standard. If this standard is indeed subject to license fees, there seems to be a legal conflict.
Regarding your point on strategy, I guess practical advise would be helpful to ease implementation and avoid conflicts. At least I assume you're referring to the interest of programmers. I guess such a strategy would have to cover: 0) how to stand against any discrimination, in order to prevent the upcoming points.
- how to legally retrieve free-of-cost and free-for-use information on
a standard (including reverse-engineering). 2) how to discover, handle or circumvent patent and copyright issues. 3) how to guarantee the freedoms with redistribution. 4) how to monitor external developments to prevent getting into new conflicts.
I like this strategy outline - its a great starting point,
I’ve been involved in three different “kingdoms” of standardisation: de jure national and European standards (CEN, BSI), consortia standardisation (W3, OASIS, IMS) and “community standards” (oAuth, Atom, OWF) and these are all quite different but I think the same principles can apply.
For de jure standards, the issues for FOSS are the cost of accessing the documentation, but there is freedom to participate (at your own logistical expense) and to vote. The main issue is that most people from FOSS don’t have the time or inclination to participate. Patent policies tend to vary; most favour FRAND rather than royalty-free.
For consortia standards, the resulting standards tend to be free of cost to access, have variable freedom from encumbrance to use (W3 are royalty-free, OASIS are FRAND), but participation requires buying a seat at the table - so most FOSS projects don’t bother unless they get some sort of sponsorship to do so.
Community or ad-hoc standards are usually free to access and implement, and often open to participation, but in my experience the ad-hoc processes are also open to abuse by major vendors setting the agenda.
(The only thing I’d like to note is that its important not to confuse software freedom for users with financial costs for developers. Its easy to get exercised by having to pay €50 for a standards document, but if that standard can be implemented without encumbrance, and the implementation freely shared, modified and distributed by users then it better supports FOSS principles than a standard that is free to download, read and implement, but which incurs licensing costs or usage restrictions on users.)
I'm missing the expertise to fill de details, and furthermore it can be specific to local legislation, so that would be a task for experts to describe.
In a way your last paragraph describes both the issue and a possible solution to the issue: standards have become essential to our society and are even included in legislation. As such enabling the forming of standards seems to be a governmental act. Not so much the content itself, but rather about the process and the eventual standard. At the very least freedom in achieving and implementing the standards should be guaranteed, to avoid any discrimination.
I'm curious to hear your upcoming post. I have come to find this topic rather interesting.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com scottbw@apache.org http://scottbw.wordpress.com @scottbw
For consortia standards, the resulting standards tend to be free of cost to access, have variable freedom from encumbrance to use [...]
It depends. Or maybe we think of different things about "consortia". IEEE stuff is not free of cost, but is freely implementable. I think this falls under consortia under your proposed split: it is not governamental "de jure" and not community.
But when I hear "consortium" I think more about bluetooth, zigbee, SD, PCI, such stuff. This is usually neither available nor free to use. Usually you even have to pay the yearly fee to the Family if you produce compliant stuff (this is in addition to paying for conformance tests).
One example, but they are all similar: http://www.usb.org/developers/vendor/
/alessandro
On 13 Jun 2015, at 12:12, Alessandro Rubini rubini@gnudd.com wrote:
For consortia standards, the resulting standards tend to be free of cost to access, have variable freedom from encumbrance to use [...]
It depends. Or maybe we think of different things about "consortia". IEEE stuff is not free of cost, but is freely implementable. I think this falls under consortia under your proposed split: it is not governamental "de jure" and not community.
But when I hear "consortium" I think more about bluetooth, zigbee, SD, PCI, such stuff. This is usually neither available nor free to use. Usually you even have to pay the yearly fee to the Family if you produce compliant stuff (this is in addition to paying for conformance tests).
One example, but they are all similar: http://www.usb.org/developers/vendor/
Yes, this is true. I guess the picture is very variable with consortia-based standards as its up to the members to agree the rules. In some industries like TV this can be really restrictive and non-members can’t even read the standards; for web standards like W3 its less so.
/alessandro
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com scottbw@apache.org http://scottbw.wordpress.com @scottbw
On Saturday 13. June 2015 12.08.39 Scott Wilson wrote:
(The only thing I’d like to note is that its important not to confuse software freedom for users with financial costs for developers. Its easy to get exercised by having to pay €50 for a standards document, but if that standard can be implemented without encumbrance, and the implementation freely shared, modified and distributed by users then it better supports FOSS principles than a standard that is free to download, read and implement, but which incurs licensing costs or usage restrictions on users.)
What about whether the documentation can be shared freely? The case that comes to my mind is that of the SQL specification which, during the period I was most interested in it, could only be found online as some kind of ISO draft presumably leaked by Digital (if I remember correctly). It's pretty tough to work towards and to claim compliance with a specification if everyone has to obtain their own copy (by post from ISO) and then nod to each other in vague agreement. As we have seen elsewhere with things like Unix, if it means that everyone agrees on their own open standard or even on the behaviour of Free Software implementations, routing around the unavailability or impracticality of formal standards documentation, then this will happen instead.
Now, there was a time when standards organisations could probably justify being a gateway to documentation, having to provide editing staff and the logistics to manage the preparation of the document (Brooks' "The Mythical Man Month" goes into detail on the kind of thing that went on inside IBM, new and sizeable paper copies of manuals being prepared every week, and so on), but just as the academic publishers have been exposed as mere middle-men, with the real work being done by everybody else, so should traditional standards organisations in domains where they may not be adding any value be regarded with similar disdain.
Indeed, the emergence of alternative venues for standards, the lack of interest in getting technologies ISO-standardised, particularly with regard to Internet interoperability (remember ISO HTML?) where a more liberal culture of standard-setting has always existed, and the reputation-damaging Microsoft OOXML exercise have all contributed to a justifiable decline in the perceived relevance of ISO and the like.
It's also worth mentioning the role of vested interests in standards. Even with liberally-managed standards like Internet RFCs or in venues like the W3C, one can see in the texts of standards documents hints of the formalisation or legitimisation of existing product behaviour. Proprietary software vendors are rather experienced at "front-running" standards so that their competitors or future implementations have to catch up with legacy implementations.
Paul
P.S. I hope someone is distilling this discussion into a concise summary for convenient future reference.
Hi Scott,
On Saturday 13. June 2015 12.08.39 Scott Wilson wrote:
(The only thing I’d like to note is that its important not to confuse software freedom for users with financial costs for developers.
Nobody questioned that. The former is a formal, legal hindrance, yet. Meanwhile the latter is a hidden one, but by no means less effective one. Focusing on the latter does not affect_ the former, on the other hand. sic.
Its easy
to get exercised by having to pay €50 for a standards document, but if that standard can be implemented without encumbrance, and the implementation freely shared, modified and distributed by users then it better supports FOSS principles than a standard that is free to download, read and implement, but which incurs licensing costs or usage restrictions on users.)
So there is no point calling the one problem "better" then the other. You do not gain one at cost of the other, neither. But you could imaging that their is a gaiming intelligence behind, that choose the one "weapon" instead of the other. Well for free software this is sure, as a term, for fossy one the interest situation could be different, but it is to express that I do _not feel easy with it, at all. Why not open a club Industries-only-open-software. IOOSy? Hey be realistic!
So the next one who says open source to mine, referring to gpl kind stuff, is getting sued. (; Lets put it in gpl_v4. Have fun anyway
Hi Nico, nice to read from you.
13.06.2015, 11:12, "Nico Rikken" nico.rikken@fsfe.org:
Dear Tom,
That was quite an elaborate statement, thanks. I don't share your view on hostility.
I am strongly holding it.
Copyright, patents and standardization practices have been around longer than actual software. As such the bodies cover more fields than just those related to software. As the matter of fact, my knowledge about standards mainly originates from non-software standards.
First I doubt if there are these days left areas of work, targeted by national standardization, that are not related to software, in broader sense. Secondly we observe that all fields covered by this "old" standardization bodies are free from free software. Would you doubt them engineers do not use software for their needs all day long? They do and and it is not free. So that is: these traditional, national, state bodies follow a politics that is labor status protecting, hierarchy-minded, anti-liberal, against individual freedom and therefore consequently against liberating effects of free software. Where these "bodies" and their interested circles had no control, cause these fields of technology where too new, too international, too rapidly arising such as internet software, computer software, word processing software, there free software could grew. In the field under such traditional control, however, not less, but rather: nothing. FS-Desert as I say.
Just for comparison: One could think of strong arguments against us: they may say: "Hey, who is fair these days? When free software comes in all these businesses which is calling your chief guru Mr. Stallman: Swindle, will disappear, which would be a good thing, but by now - hm we need the money. Are you kidding?"
How, however, ran it with the women entering the labor market 100 years ago (formally equal)? Are they from another skin color? Are they from another nation? Are not they from their very same bully of their bully? Yes and still they are paid lower, at least in this country. The point here is: how sustainable is such status protection and how unbeatable strong their propaganda. Hostility? Even if it is not, it would be well invented. - But ok I reach some point against my former speech. (: At least the underlying structural interest conflict is seemingly that strong, that it resulted insulting for the opponent not to envisage "hostility". (;
In the software-related fields however the issue of free software should be known and addressed by now, I certainly agree with you on that.
ok. I notice, that you speak of something new, too.
Regarding your point on testing, as far as I know, testing specifications are defined, and testing organizations often request fees regarding the tests, but anyone can start testing according to the specifications. Or is this also regulated?
Depends on danger degree, probably. Experiences Scott pointed out, seemed seemingly to mine, too. Else: Who knows in the end of the day,it depends on judge's decision in many cases and then you know it afterwards, I deem.
More generic I've seen the standardization process at work from afar and to me the process seems to be quite transparant. In the Netherlands the standardization body NEN is in charge of developing standards. The described approach [1] covers the forming of a committee which will develop a new standard, which will be up for public review, followed by publication and implementation. If the standard becomes outdated or needs other adjustments,
such as committing "hostile" acts against some competitors, of which free software projects could_ be one. (Are not they all corrupt down to the bones? It is not at all insulting to state that.)
the process will start over (this generally seems to happen every few years). I haven't yet gathered knowledge on how other bodies handle reaching consensus, so I can't really compare. [1] https://www.nen.nl/Normontwikkeling/Wat-is-normalisatie/De-7-stappen-van-nor...
In the meantime I've contacted a few people involved in NEN and I've managed to get some information, but I still have some detailed questions in queue. I was told patents can't block implementation, and related patents should be known at the moment of standardization.
Ask the university professors authors mentioned in each of them docs, especially after one or another have been kicked out. They tell you any gossip you could be after, says I. (;
However: what happens when patents are filed after the standard is drafted? and is a non-discriminatory low-cost license fee for each implementation acceptable?
" low-cost license fee for each implementation" Says the fsf in there faq, it were "ufo".
To me these seem to be the more fundamental
questions for which I still lack an answer. This especially interesting in that I know of a GPLv3 client-side implementation of a standard. If this standard is indeed subject to license fees, there seems to be a legal conflict.
"license fee" in your case stems from a specs copyright? or a possible per implementation fee of an underlying patent? Hey, _I am new to it and interested in some case training..._. Where do you see exactly the problem (point in license text of gpl_v3) ? Distributing copies? For any "stand-alone and system-library" issues there is still lpgl available, is not it? If an in-code actual patent is effective then free license seems to be broken during that time, cause one is gets new duties for distributing copies.
Regarding your point on strategy, I guess practical advise would be helpful to ease implementation and avoid conflicts. At least I assume you're referring to the interest of programmers. I guess such a strategy would have to cover: 0) how to stand against any discrimination, in order to prevent the upcoming points.
- how to legally retrieve free-of-cost and free-for-use information on
a standard (including reverse-engineering). 2) how to discover, handle or circumvent patent and copyright issues. 3) how to guarantee the freedoms with redistribution. 4) how to monitor external developments to prevent getting into new conflicts.
Yes, 0-3 agreement. 4: do not understand --->One has to note that 1a) "free-of-cost information", would require letting fall the open standard definition hold by now by the fsfe and switch to new one. This facts had been found out in this thread.
Honestly I consider the concern that grave that it required a whole internal communication labor. Effectively we found ourselves blowing against the winds of mentioned propaganda, says I. Hopefully it longs not a hundred years, too. Some carefully designed campaign is needed... <---
I'm missing the expertise to fill de details, and furthermore it can be specific to local legislation, so that would be a
task for experts to
describe.
I have given up believing in the experts religions. Some groups of local (because the enemy standardization bodies/circles and their reach are national) persons, who are interested by some reason or another, could be supported by an NGO fsfe or fsf. Who comes first chicken or egg?
In a way your last paragraph describes both the issue and a possible solution to the issue: standards have become essential to our society and are even included in legislation. As such enabling the forming of standards seems to be a "governmental act".
ok. I find this important.
Not so much the content itself, but rather about the process and the eventual standard. At the very least
freedom in achieving and implementing the standards should be
guaranteed_, to avoid any discrimination.
I agree, this should be a claim to the national politics.
I'm curious to hear your upcoming post. I have come to find this topic rather interesting.
Want to put "it" all together soon as an "end status".
Nice talk. Hey, and if I may express that: I am glad to acknowledge that is somebody who mainly supports/shares my point. Regards.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken
Dear Tom,
Thanks for the detailed response, I'll add to that.
On ma, 2015-06-15 at 21:37 +0200, Tom Blecher wrote:
Hi Nico, nice to read from you.
13.06.2015, 11:12, "Nico Rikken" nico.rikken@fsfe.org:
Dear Tom,
That was quite an elaborate statement, thanks. I don't share your view on hostility.
I am strongly holding it.
Considering your further remarks in your response, I guess I'll have to share some of your experiences to be able to share your view.
Copyright, patents and standardization practices have been around longer than actual software. As such the bodies cover more fields than just those related to software. As the matter of fact, my knowledge about standards mainly originates from non-software standards.
First I doubt if there are these days left areas of work, targeted by national standardization, that are not related to software, in broader sense.
Although generally a standard has a limited scope, so the software-part can be a different standard.
Secondly we observe that all fields covered by this "old" standardization bodies are free from free software. Would you doubt them engineers do not use software for their needs all day long? They do and and it is not free.
I consider the software being non-free a status quo. People seem ignorant or spoiled. I've heard many people argue that software being free is not of primary importance, the quality and features are. The fact that freedom can contribute to quality and features, and brings many strategic advantages seems overlooked. A long-term view is a scarce resource.
So that is: these traditional, national, state bodies follow a politics that is labor status protecting, hierarchy-minded, anti-liberal, against individual freedom and therefore consequently against liberating effects of free software. Where these "bodies" and their interested circles had no control, cause these fields of technology where too new, too international, too rapidly arising such as internet software, computer software, word processing software, there free software could grew. In the field under such traditional control, however, not less, but rather: nothing. FS-Desert as I say.
Ultimately persons generally aren't really interested in bringing down the hierarchy from which they gain their power. Free Software levels that playing field and allows interdependent rather than dependent relationships. At the very least this requires a different type of collaboration.
Just for comparison: One could think of strong arguments against us: they may say: "Hey, who is fair these days? When free software comes in all these businesses which is calling your chief guru Mr. Stallman: Swindle, will disappear, which would be a good thing, but by now - hm we need the money. Are you kidding?"
How, however, ran it with the women entering the labor market 100 years ago (formally equal)? Are they from another skin color? Are they from another nation? Are not they from their very same bully of their bully? Yes and still they are paid lower, at least in this country. The point here is: how sustainable is such status protection and how unbeatable strong their propaganda. Hostility? Even if it is not, it would be well invented. - But ok I reach some point against my former speech. (: At least the underlying structural interest conflict is seemingly that strong, that it resulted insulting for the opponent not to envisage "hostility". (;
I consider it the effect of the way the system was rigged. Changing that rigging takes time and effort and is threatening to existing practices. So indeed systems are at conflict, but I wouldn't call it hostile, but rather part of the overall transition-process.
In the software-related fields however the issue of free software should be known and addressed by now, I certainly agree with you on that.
ok. I notice, that you speak of something new, too.
Regarding your point on testing, as far as I know, testing specifications are defined, and testing organizations often request fees regarding the tests, but anyone can start testing according to the specifications. Or is this also regulated?
Depends on danger degree, probably. Experiences Scott pointed out, seemed seemingly to mine, too. Else: Who knows in the end of the day,it depends on judge's decision in many cases and then you know it afterwards, I deem.
More generic I've seen the standardization process at work from afar and to me the process seems to be quite transparant. In the Netherlands the standardization body NEN is in charge of developing standards. The described approach [1] covers the forming of a committee which will develop a new standard, which will be up for public review, followed by publication and implementation. If the standard becomes outdated or needs other adjustments,
such as committing "hostile" acts against some competitors, of which free software projects could_ be one. (Are not they all corrupt down to the bones? It is not at all insulting to state that.)
The formal answer is that if you want to defend your interest, you'd have to join the standardization process. What that comes down to in practice, I don't know.
the process will start over (this generally seems to happen every few years). I haven't yet gathered knowledge on how other bodies handle reaching consensus, so I can't really compare. [1] https://www.nen.nl/Normontwikkeling/Wat-is-normalisatie/De-7-stappen-van-nor...
In the meantime I've contacted a few people involved in NEN and I've managed to get some information, but I still have some detailed questions in queue. I was told patents can't block implementation, and related patents should be known at the moment of standardization.
Ask the university professors authors mentioned in each of them docs, especially after one or another have been kicked out. They tell you any gossip you could be after, says I. (;
However: what happens when patents are filed after the standard is drafted? and is a non-discriminatory low-cost license fee for each implementation acceptable?
" low-cost license fee for each implementation" Says the fsf in there faq, it were "ufo".
I haven't been able to get formal clarification on this point, so yes a low-cost license fee might be the case. Although of course I'm hoping it to be a free-of-cost license if any. Especially I'm interested to known what happens when related patents are issues after a standard has been set (as I've observed covering certain implementation details). Than from that moment on all implementing parties might have to cope with additional license fees.
To me these seem to be the more fundamental
questions for which I still lack an answer. This especially interesting in that I know of a GPLv3 client-side implementation of a standard. If this standard is indeed subject to license fees, there seems to be a legal conflict.
"license fee" in your case stems from a specs copyright? or a possible per implementation fee of an underlying patent? Hey, _I am new to it and interested in some case training..._. Where do you see exactly the problem (point in license text of gpl_v3) ? Distributing copies? For any "stand-alone and system-library" issues there is still lpgl available, is not it? If an in-code actual patent is effective then free license seems to be broken during that time, cause one is gets new duties for distributing copies.
GPLv3 implies that related patent licenses are propagated with the software, for patents owned by the software contributor. In addition the contributor is to take steps to avoid patent restrictions from known patents. Please read it for yourself in section 11 of the GPLv3. [1] I'm no expert either, but to me it seems the conflict is that there exist patents related to a GPv3 libary which don't seem properly addressed. In a way as a user of the software I would be able to sue the developer for not taking the proper considerations. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
[1] https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Regarding your point on strategy, I guess practical advise would be helpful to ease implementation and avoid conflicts. At least I assume you're referring to the interest of programmers. I guess such a strategy would have to cover: 0) how to stand against any discrimination, in order to prevent the upcoming points.
- how to legally retrieve free-of-cost and free-for-use information on
a standard (including reverse-engineering). 2) how to discover, handle or circumvent patent and copyright issues. 3) how to guarantee the freedoms with redistribution. 4) how to monitor external developments to prevent getting into new conflicts.
Yes, 0-3 agreement. 4: do not understand
E.g. if new patents arise on certain implementation details this should be noticed ans warned for. Also consider the Open Innovation Network, building a patent portfolio as well as creating defensive publications to prevent new patents.
--->One has to note that 1a) "free-of-cost information", would require letting fall the open standard definition hold by now by the fsfe and switch to new one. This facts had been found out in this thread.
I wasn't conscious of that point coming up, so thanks for mentioning explicitly. Apart from the FSFE-definition, acquiring the information is free-of-cost can be said to be desirable. And bringing tips wouldn't hurt.
Honestly I consider the concern that grave that it required a whole internal communication labor. Effectively we found ourselves blowing against the winds of mentioned propaganda, says I. Hopefully it longs not a hundred years, too. Some carefully designed campaign is needed... <---
True, I like to think this thread has helped clarify the issue for some of us. Even if we are left with some disagreements, a lot of common ground is available.
I'm missing the expertise to fill de details, and furthermore it can be specific to local legislation, so that would be a
task for experts to
describe.
I have given up believing in the experts religions. Some groups of local (because the enemy standardization bodies/circles and their reach are national) persons, who are interested by some reason or another, could be supported by an NGO fsfe or fsf. Who comes first chicken or egg?
I guess that's why this discussion is so interesting, to discuss down to the details and to become better educated in the process. And of course there are plenty of experts around to contact for the little details.
In a way your last paragraph describes both the issue and a possible solution to the issue: standards have become essential to our society and are even included in legislation. As such enabling the forming of standards seems to be a "governmental act".
ok. I find this important.
Not so much the content itself, but rather about the process and the eventual standard. At the very least
freedom in achieving and implementing the standards should be
guaranteed_, to avoid any discrimination.
I agree, this should be a claim to the national politics.
Like I addressed in my email earlier today, the resource-load of drafting standards can be skewed towards supporting organizations or contributors as well.
I'm curious to hear your upcoming post. I have come to find this topic rather interesting.
Want to put "it" all together soon as an "end status".
I guess you can write an extensive overview about now. And maybe it is best to consider it a starting point rather than a final destination.
Nice talk. Hey, and if I may express that: I am glad to acknowledge that is somebody who mainly supports/shares my point. Regards.
So am I, that's why I'm glad by brought it up.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi Nico, overlooked this post first. So here comes the feed back to some left points.
> > More generic I've seen the standardization process at work from afar and > to me the process seems to be quite transparant. In the Netherlands the > standardization body NEN is in charge of developing standards. The > described approach [1] covers the forming of a committee which will > develop a new standard, which will be up for public review, followed by > publication and implementation. If the standard becomes outdated or > needs other adjustments,
such as committing "hostile" acts against some competitors, of which free software projects could_ be one. (Are not they all corrupt down to the bones? It is not at all insulting to state that.)
The formal answer is that if you want to defend your interest, you'd have to join the standardization process. What that comes down to in practice, I don't know.
For they played soccer at national war field, everything seemed possible again. This is true. Maybe as funny as effective are your proposals in the end, hm?
> However: what happens when patents are filed after the standard is > drafted? and is a non-discriminatory low-cost license fee for each > implementation acceptable? " low-cost license fee for each implementation" Says the fsf in there faq, it were "ufo".
I haven't been able to get formal clarification on this point, so yes a low-cost license fee might be the case. Although of course I'm hoping it to be a free-of-cost license if any. Especially I'm interested to known what happens when related patents are issues after a standard has been set (as I've observed covering certain implementation details). Than from that moment on all implementing parties might have to cope with additional license fees.
What speaks against suing-each-other-logic? (;
To me these seem to be the more fundamental > questions for which I still lack an answer. This especially interesting > in that I know of a GPLv3 client-side implementation of a standard. If > this standard is indeed subject to license fees, there seems to be a > legal conflict. "license fee" in your case stems from a specs copyright? or a possible per implementation fee of an underlying patent? Hey, _I am new to it and interested in some case training..._. Where do you see exactly the problem (point in license text of gpl_v3) ? Distributing copies? For any "stand-alone and system-library" issues there is still lpgl available, is not it? If an in-code actual patent is effective then free license seems to be broken during that time, cause one is gets new duties for distributing copies.
GPLv3 implies that related patent licenses are propagated with the software, for patents owned by the software contributor. In addition the contributor is to take steps to avoid patent restrictions from known patents. Please read it for yourself in section 11 of the GPLv3. [1] I'm no expert either, but to me it seems the conflict is that there exist patents related to a GPv3 libary which don't seem properly addressed. In a way as a user of the software I would be able to sue the developer for not taking the proper considerations. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
Do not know who can sue in the end of the day against whom. But I hold fast that the contract (gpl-license) is to be considered as invalid as the a contract conflicts with higher law. You simply can not grant such freedom of distribution, even if you state that. An invalid contract is not a crime nor a violation of anything by itself, it is just that it can not fulfill its purpose. It think in the end of the day the patent holder comes and wants money per implementation. That is the suit case and threat for anybody involved then... Might be so difficult to have some discussion about that because discussing contracting_ problems are the lawyers bread, which I regard a pity.
One penny more: I thing the fsf finished off the explanation of the problem of patents in their faqs. And yours should be among them..
> Regarding your point on strategy, I guess practical advise would be > helpful to ease implementation and avoid conflicts. At least I assume > you're referring to the interest of programmers. I guess such a strategy > would have to cover: > 0) how to stand against any discrimination, in order to prevent the > upcoming points. > 1) how to legally retrieve free-of-cost and free-for-use information on > a standard (including reverse-engineering). > 2) how to discover, handle or circumvent patent and copyright issues. > 3) how to guarantee the freedoms with redistribution. > 4) how to monitor external developments to prevent getting into new > conflicts. Yes, 0-3 agreement. 4: do not understand
E.g. if new patents arise on certain implementation details this should be noticed ans warned for. Also consider the Open Innovation Network, building a patent portfolio as well as creating defensive publications to prevent new patents.
ok, got it. Seems challenging.
--->One has to note that 1a) "free-of-cost information", would require letting fall the open standard definition hold by now by the fsfe and switch to new one. This facts had been found out in this thread.
I wasn't conscious of that point coming up, so thanks for mentioning explicitly. Apart from the FSFE-definition, acquiring the information is free-of-cost can be said to be desirable.
And bringing tips wouldn't hurt.
Exactly. Great.
Honestly I consider the concern that grave that it required a whole internal communication labor. Effectively we found ourselves blowing against the winds of mentioned propaganda, says I. Hopefully it longs not a hundred years, too. Some carefully designed campaign is needed... <---
True, I like to think this thread has helped clarify the issue for some of us. Even if we are left with some disagreements, a lot of common ground is available.
Yes, there are resources, the challenge is to make use out of them. I support your very point.
Like I addressed in my email earlier today, the resource-load of drafting standards can be skewed towards supporting organizations or contributors as well.
Yes, for example. As it is a governmental act then one could think of plenty of remedies for fixes they brought us in.
So far, about the upcoming work plan (wiki), I would like to have a separate conversation/communication. And as said I would like to fit in your wishes. Regards
Hi there, here comes the provisional end report of it. https://softwareforhartz4entertainer.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/237/ here you get directly to the results:https://softwareforhartz4entertainer.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/237/#chapter4
Hallo, Foreword:
we had a discussion on the mailing list of the free software foundation Europe [2], where members of free software foundation Europe but anyone could have read with and furthermore everybody in future could read. I had a picture of the whole process when I came in. Now I give back the picture I got after the consultations.
As a red tread I proceed with first naming the Is-State and then naming the should-be state, or recommendations.
-As I find the matters stems strongly from a counters labeled with „propaganda“ on it I open a section FAQ for blind spots and the like illnesses. It should be an endpoint for an investigation “chase”, so to say an report on the situation of standardization and free software.
This in one form or another, e.g. published separately on a blog (cause this is can not serve more than a maybe incomplete braindump), could be a reference for somebody who dares to get pulled into debating in future. Status quo then:
on the relevance of the problem:
Located in space the phenomenon, which is where the problem is seen, can be found where they say is a bottle neck. You speed thinks up at bottle neck. This goes down to developers, for example how much faster it is when you got the specification at the time writing a driver for a device or not. – Cause in latter case work is “tedious”. On a macro-view one should see that the time, free software i is needing is depending on it. So it is to acknowledge that in general standardization is of highest importance for free software propagation. Findings then first:
1 It was found that situation for free software referring to standardization is to be considered as: very bad.
2 It was found that the state of the fsfe is very bad in consequence.
3 And that they should in effect change their politics from support, even propagation of documents-freedom-day open standard definition into into negating and attacking it.
On 1:
What current approaches can be seen in the free software politics towards standardization.
-Gnu approach: The Gnu Document License is recommended for any documentation of programs, which can Docs as ISO or DIN seen to be part of.
-Real-World approach: Satellite projects use CC0 or “Public Domain” for integration of such standardized (reinvented) data.
-fsfe approach: Propagating the “open document day” and its definition.
Why has the “open document day” definition and praxis to be seen as bad?
One observes the economical truth that in the field where IS0 or such has a relevance, that there is a
free software desert. The effect of having to pay fees for (developer and community users) suffices to annihilate free software in this field, which should include the professionals’ field. Standardization has to be seen as a “Governmental Act” such as cyclically updating law books.
The real world effect on a human level e.g. for a developer, for a licensed changer of code is that he got even criminalized. They need to, they are misled to “leak” to say, they infringe ISO’s Copy-Right. Over more the whole development of free software itselve is criminalized with it, too. On a scale of badness the promotion situation needs to set to: drastic.
So now imaging what do open-document-day definition and its support mean? It means to even give a license to annihilate the development chances of free software which is over more the object of mandate.
In other words the finding is:: self licensed self annihilation. See [1] below!
On 2:
Why seems fsfe to be stricken? How role their run into their current role?
First it is found that only fsfe Europe has supported the Document freedom days definition. It is not quite clear how the fsfe had become support of DFD. But it turns out that there exists a tricky logically argumentation of that matter, which can be believed, but which is effectively wrong:
Lets say the object of our care is threatened of annihilation by two dangers: knife1(documents paying) and knife2 (pay for patents) . So agreeing in once own annihilation took place, where some found a convenience in getting rid of knife2 and staying just with knife1. Maybe they were tricked, still tricked, maybe they are betrayed or – corrupt. Another signal for that is that they do not care for the criminalization of their own people, but help producing it. On 3:
Is that not a scandal, if – even by confession –it comes now?
Is seems to be a scandal. The former co-supporters will become by such a politics switch to opponents for supporting a formerly common object. One should care if they were some how stricken.
But one can pity them less for set out to face loss, cause these people are to a good degree professionals of public affairs, face losses and so on. So one does a good choice in expecting them to deliver a decent of their jobs, no? If not up to now, then at least from now on.
They should change the politics as explained and they should treat the public by it as they have learned it and are trained to it.
The result state of such a politics change (referring standardization) should be kept an eye on as a chief matter and by an ideally big number of independent observers. Affected could be sensitized for such politics changing campaign if necessary.
Maybe there need to be done some conviction on the rational level within the responsible as well?One needed to find all their objection and bring proves for those details, list them and the conclude to the whole picture.
Up to now it is to expected that it is disavowed even the chance that such self licensed self annihilation is taking place.
Which format/license should a future standardization doc be delivered in?
Satellite projects as BOLTS for FreeCad, use CC0 or “Public Domain”. So switching from the dfd-support it would be the first opt to claim them standardization bodies to deliver in such licenses, too.
The claim to the authorities is justified cause we are dealing with “governmental acts”. One needs to acknowledge that judges rely on them for example in civil law suits. Faq:
-How might one send a child to your education events, as you are seemingly self destructive , corrupt and criminalize your own people? Will not you worry?
-Is fsf (us) not following the dfd line? Why?
-On BOLTS: How should your ISO-Docs be licensed ideally? CC0? http://forum.freecadweb.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11672
[1] These screenshots prove that fsfe is indeed propagating such an open standard proposal. As one sees as well the definition does not tackle the subject fees per document. Thus ISO and the like can feel “licensed” for playing off their annihilating effects (against their smaller opponents of which free software developers are one)
DfD0 DfDDfD
[2]https://www.mail-archive.com/discussion@fsfeurope.org/msg05187.html
Dear Tom,
Thanks for working out the summary and refining your point of view. I adopt the view that any standard is an improvement, and the more open the better (e.g. to avoid OOXML like practices). I too am convinced that the FSFE should consider a more strict position on this point, and should educate the audience regarding this issue.
Looking at the source-code of the web-page [1], it seems a more descriptive formulation regarding the definition was revised to adopt the stance of the European Commission's Europe Interoperability Framework (EIF) in which the FSFE participated. So in that regard, solely considering the web-page could be subject to an oversimplified explanation, and politics.
[1] https://trac.fsfe.org/fsfe-web/changeset?new=30236%40trunk% 2Factivities%2Fos%2Fdef.en.xhtml&old=22970%40trunk%2Fprojects%2Fos% 2Fdef.en.xhtml
I noticed you already contacted the FSFE directly regarding this issue (as I was CC'd), and I'd like to add to that effort.
Am I correct to over-summarize the discussion to:
"The FSFE's currently adopted Open Standards definition [2] allows for discrimination by price and scope of use, as common practice doesn't suit a model of multiple individual contributors (community) or development by less wealthy developers. It lacks to force the ability of anyone to take part in the standardization process. And it lacks to force patents that were part of the standardization process to be available under licenses which suit the free software license model, in order to avoid requesting individual licenses by the users."
[2] https://fsfe.org/activities/os/def.html
If I'm missing some points, please add to it, because I'd like this to become a more official discussion within the FSFE. Currently it is a statement on a web-page, and I believe bringing this point up for discussion would allow a more refined definition.
So thanks for taking on the effort to discuss and document this subject, as it certainly enables a reconsideration of the current stance.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken
Hi, one more thought to it, on the initial question where the DIN/ISO.. problem needs to be sorted into. Given that there is a local actor who asks the fsf(e) for help? They say why? First prove that it is our problem? In other word: How support, the claim for it, the expectation of it from the side of the mother organization is to justified? In question is a) by the open standard thing or b) by the original free licensing of text, such as GPL or other free license. So relying on a) seems to be no secure ground. They say that it were not anyhow their problem, and in the end of the day they blame you sneaking from their resources. to say that is where a) at the end of the day leads to. Be it propaganda induced or not. b) Limiting how ever on the simple and original claim that any text should be (better) free licensed, is not so easy to defend. In this case the importance is stressed as these are required components of combined free program source code texts, which should be secure.
So: "hey, government, publish all DIN/ISO by now on a free License ! Even the fsf support it and say it were necessary, do not you?" Would be the appropriate slogan. And result of this investigation here. Regards
Regarding your point on strategy, I guess practical advise would be helpful to ease implementation and avoid conflicts. At least I assume you're referring to the interest of programmers. I guess such a strategy would have to cover: 0) how to stand against any discrimination, in order to prevent the upcoming points. 1) how to legally retrieve free-of-cost and free-for-use information on a standard (including reverse-engineering). 2) how to discover, handle or circumvent patent and copyright issues. 3) how to guarantee the freedoms with redistribution. 4) how to monitor external developments to prevent getting into new conflicts.
Yes, 0-3 agreement. 4: do not understand --->One has to note that 1a) "free-of-cost information", would require letting fall the open standard definition hold by now by the fsfe and switch to new one. This facts had been found out in this thread.
Honestly I consider the concern that grave that it required a whole internal communication labor. Effectively we found ourselves blowing against the winds of mentioned propaganda, says I. Hopefully it longs not a hundred years, too. Some carefully designed campaign is needed... <---
I'm missing the expertise to fill de details, and furthermore it can be specific to local legislation, so that would be a
task for experts to
describe.
I have given up believing in the experts religions. Some groups of local (because the enemy standardization bodies/circles and their reach are national) persons, who are interested by some reason or another, could be supported by an NGO fsfe or fsf. Who comes first chicken or egg?
In a way your last paragraph describes both the issue and a possible solution to the issue: standards have become essential to our society and are even included in legislation. As such enabling the forming of standards seems to be a "governmental act".
ok. I find this important.
Dear Tom,
I called it 'practical advise' and in that context I thought of a few wiki-pages or articles. And if further questions arise or advise is wanted the entity could for instance contact the fsf(e). I don't consider the fsf(e) to take part necessarily, it is between the standardization body and the entity implementing it. (I guess this lack of a community amongst users is part of the reason why this issue hasn't been addressed.)
Do you consider the inherent, free-of-cost licensing of related patents to be part of A in your example? Because then the distinction is between the freedom of the standards document and the license-freedom related to implementing in relationship to known patents.
Your bigger-picture stance makes sense, but as the standardization bodies generally don't control the patent licenses cooperation of other parties is required. Especially for freeing the standards.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken
On di, 2015-06-16 at 14:21 +0200, Tom Blecher wrote:
Hi, one more thought to it, on the initial question where the DIN/ISO.. problem needs to be sorted into. Given that there is a local actor who asks the fsf(e) for help? They say why? First prove that it is our problem? In other word: How support, the claim for it, the expectation of it from the side of the mother organization is to justified? In question is a) by the open standard thing or b) by the original free licensing of text, such as GPL or other free license. So relying on a) seems to be no secure ground. They say that it were not anyhow their problem, and in the end of the day they blame you sneaking from their resources. to say that is where a) at the end of the day leads to. Be it propaganda induced or not. b) Limiting how ever on the simple and original claim that any text should be (better) free licensed, is not so easy to defend. In this case the importance is stressed as these are required components of combined free program source code texts, which should be secure.
So: "hey, government, publish all DIN/ISO by now on a free License ! Even the fsf support it and say it were necessary, do not you?" Would be the appropriate slogan. And result of this investigation here. Regards
Regarding your point on strategy, I guess practical advise would be helpful to ease implementation and avoid conflicts. At least I assume you're referring to the interest of programmers. I guess such a strategy would have to cover: 0) how to stand against any discrimination, in order to prevent the upcoming points.
- how to legally retrieve free-of-cost and free-for-use information on
a standard (including reverse-engineering). 2) how to discover, handle or circumvent patent and copyright issues. 3) how to guarantee the freedoms with redistribution. 4) how to monitor external developments to prevent getting into new conflicts.
Yes, 0-3 agreement. 4: do not understand --->One has to note that 1a) "free-of-cost information", would require letting fall the open standard definition hold by now by the fsfe and switch to new one. This facts had been found out in this thread.
Honestly I consider the concern that grave that it required a whole internal communication labor. Effectively we found ourselves blowing against the winds of mentioned propaganda, says I. Hopefully it longs not a hundred years, too. Some carefully designed campaign is needed... <---
I'm missing the expertise to fill de details, and furthermore it can be specific to local legislation, so that would be a
task for experts to
describe.
I have given up believing in the experts religions. Some groups of local (because the enemy standardization bodies/circles and their reach are national) persons, who are interested by some reason or another, could be supported by an NGO fsfe or fsf. Who comes first chicken or egg?
In a way your last paragraph describes both the issue and a possible solution to the issue: standards have become essential to our society and are even included in legislation. As such enabling the forming of standards seems to be a "governmental act".
ok. I find this important.
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi Tom,
Am 07.06.2015 um 01:36 schrieb Tom Blecher:
Hello Scott, Nico, Michael, and others reading,
I studied now your previous statements, thank you for your points first. I think I understood it all very well. No doubt.
So straight forward for the finding on the head: So the propagandist story goes: Some talked of fs as a virus. You know that. For the virus the nature has some remedy. This strategy in loosely words is: alcohol. It kills all virus, even the last one. Be sure! So DIN is for example a master of hygiene. How does it do that? Simply by charging a fee for each specification document. The point that you and might be the rest on this planet do not acknowledge or probably accept the lethal effect on free software, just proves how good this alcohol is or less figuratively how evidently efficient the propaganda is. - Hey are we dealing with propaganda, yes? So may it matter that they are deemed damn powerful imho? Furthermore: So lets leave the picture of disease which it in not. Cause in the end it donates life and not how it is defamed that it devastated whole regions. What hygiene in this means can be fitter denominated as what I would call: free software deserts. That dramatic is the situation we face. And not randomly everywhere DIN has its fingers in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_... nice all free software free. So back to the topic. I said desert: How is that any relevant to us, one might ask in the words of Micheal:
The issue of money for the paper really seems very small against all the
possible pitfalls for implementing them. Relevant is first that it is lethal for the free software, what could be worse? All pitfalls together? No! Nothing! Second: Have you once put into account how much human beings had to spend a whole work live far from free software. I mean considering the above list? Millions? Is that an argument for relevance? And might for each of them govern: what Mr. Stallman said on that there is no excuse for using no free software? So in result we gain a heavy duty to help our fellows, we who we are supposed to as "promoters of free software". What keeps seeming odd, that you and other experts have a strong contrary opinion on it.
Let me just specify one well-known example: OfficeOpen XML [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML ISO was tricked by illegal moves of Microsoft [1] to accept it as a standard. Even if you can get the standard without cost, you will never be able to comply with it, because of its sheer whopping 6000 (!) pages.
Let me state it clearly: Fees for standard papers (and certification) may be a problem but that would be solvable. Always remember: Free Software does not mean gratis and there is always money involved to create software professionally, about 75% of Linux code is developed in professional context [2].
Bye Michael
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML [1] http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=127 [2] http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/linux-kernel-in-2011-15-million-tota...
Hi Micheal,
09.06.2015, 21:05, "Michael Kesper" mkesper@schokokeks.org:
Hi Tom,
Am 07.06.2015 um 01:36 schrieb Tom Blecher:
Hello Scott, Nico, Michael, and others reading,
I studied now your previous statements, thank you for your points first. I think I understood it all very well. No doubt.
So straight forward for the finding on the head: So the propagandist story goes: Some talked of fs as a virus. You know that. For the virus the nature has some remedy. This strategy in loosely words is: alcohol. It kills all virus, even the last one. Be sure! So DIN is for example a master of hygiene. How does it do that? Simply by charging a fee for each specification document. The point that you and might be the rest on this planet do not acknowledge or probably accept the lethal effect on free software, just proves how good this alcohol is or less figuratively how evidently efficient the propaganda is. - Hey are we dealing with propaganda, yes? So may it matter that they are deemed damn powerful imho? Furthermore: So lets leave the picture of disease which it in not. Cause in the end it donates life and not how it is defamed that it devastated whole regions. What hygiene in this means can be fitter denominated as what I would call: free software deserts. That dramatic is the situation we face. And not randomly everywhere DIN has its fingers in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_... nice all free software free. So back to the topic. I said desert: How is that any relevant to us, one might ask in the words of Micheal: > The issue of money for the paper really seems very small against all the possible pitfalls for implementing them. Relevant is first that it is lethal for the free software, what could be worse? All pitfalls together? No! Nothing! Second: Have you once put into account how much human beings had to spend a whole work live far from free software. I mean considering the above list? Millions? Is that an argument for relevance? And might for each of them govern: what Mr. Stallman said on that there is no excuse for using no free software? So in result we gain a heavy duty to help our fellows, we who we are supposed to as "promoters of free software". What keeps seeming odd, that you and other experts have a strong contrary opinion on it.
Let me just specify one well-known example: OfficeOpen XML [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML ISO was tricked by illegal moves of Microsoft [1] to accept it as a standard. Even if you can get the standard without cost, you will never be able to comply with it, because of its sheer whopping 6000 (!) pages.
There is nothing said about that there could be applied other indefinitely many tricks over more, hindrances for free software. We will not and do not want to treat all of them here. Here we focus on the fee, as the first and sufficient hindrance. I call it lethal.
Let me state it clearly: Fees for standard papers (and certification) may be a problem but that would be solvable.
Says you, says me: Never. Give an example!
Always remember: Free Software does not mean gratis and there is always money involved to create software professionally, about 75% of Linux code is developed in professional context [2].
So what does that prove here exactly? Can not recognize the point in here, and over more do not believe, not to say pretty sure, that there is none. Developing a driver for linux is free of fee, offering it, too. Anyway. As practically no other free software, I know of, is charged. And the fact that there is always money involved these days, is not even to be touched. Regards
Bye Michael
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML [1] http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=127 [2] http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/linux-kernel-in-2011-15-million-tota... _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 15 Jun 2015, at 17:42, Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645@yandex.com wrote:
Hi Micheal,
09.06.2015, 21:05, "Michael Kesper" mkesper@schokokeks.org:
Hi Tom,
Am 07.06.2015 um 01:36 schrieb Tom Blecher:
Hello Scott, Nico, Michael, and others reading,
I studied now your previous statements, thank you for your points first. I think I understood it all very well. No doubt.
So straight forward for the finding on the head: So the propagandist story goes: Some talked of fs as a virus. You know that. For the virus the nature has some remedy. This strategy in loosely words is: alcohol. It kills all virus, even the last one. Be sure! So DIN is for example a master of hygiene. How does it do that? Simply by charging a fee for each specification document. The point that you and might be the rest on this planet do not acknowledge or probably accept the lethal effect on free software, just proves how good this alcohol is or less figuratively how evidently efficient the propaganda is. - Hey are we dealing with propaganda, yes? So may it matter that they are deemed damn powerful imho? Furthermore: So lets leave the picture of disease which it in not. Cause in the end it donates life and not how it is defamed that it devastated whole regions. What hygiene in this means can be fitter denominated as what I would call: free software deserts. That dramatic is the situation we face. And not randomly everywhere DIN has its fingers in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_... nice all free software free. So back to the topic. I said desert: How is that any relevant to us, one might ask in the words of Micheal:
The issue of money for the paper really seems very small against all the
possible pitfalls for implementing them. Relevant is first that it is lethal for the free software, what could be worse? All pitfalls together? No! Nothing! Second: Have you once put into account how much human beings had to spend a whole work live far from free software. I mean considering the above list? Millions? Is that an argument for relevance? And might for each of them govern: what Mr. Stallman said on that there is no excuse for using no free software? So in result we gain a heavy duty to help our fellows, we who we are supposed to as "promoters of free software". What keeps seeming odd, that you and other experts have a strong contrary opinion on it.
Let me just specify one well-known example: OfficeOpen XML [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML ISO was tricked by illegal moves of Microsoft [1] to accept it as a standard. Even if you can get the standard without cost, you will never be able to comply with it, because of its sheer whopping 6000 (!) pages.
There is nothing said about that there could be applied other indefinitely many tricks over more, hindrances for free software. We will not and do not want to treat all of them here. Here we focus on the fee, as the first and sufficient hindrance. I call it lethal.
To write and compile code you need to buy a computer. Software written using a non-gratis computer can still be Free Software, right? Likewise nobody insists on developers only reading gratis books when learning to program. If you buy “Java For Dummies” from a bookstore this doesn’t enforce any restrictions on the users of software you create, so its completely irrelevant when considering whether something is Free Software.
The restrictions we should be concerned about are those that affect the freedoms of the users of the software, typically patented methods, that may be present as encumbrances in standards - in some cases deliberately injected by patent owners.
The fee for buying a standards document to read is to me the least problematic aspect of standardisation; in one case I persuaded a national agency to buy a soft copy of a particular standard for every university library in the UK to avoid the whole problem. I think it cost around £3,000 in total :)
Let me state it clearly: Fees for standard papers (and certification)
may be a problem but that would be solvable.
Says you, says me: Never. Give an example!
Always remember: Free Software does not mean gratis and there is always money involved to create software professionally, about 75% of Linux code is developed in professional context [2].
So what does that prove here exactly? Can not recognize the point in here, and over more do not believe, not to say pretty sure, that there is none. Developing a driver for linux is free of fee, offering it, too. Anyway. As practically no other free software, I know of, is charged. And the fact that there is always money involved these days, is not even to be touched. Regards
Bye Michael
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML [1] http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=127 [2] http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/linux-kernel-in-2011-15-million-tota... _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com scottbw@apache.org http://scottbw.wordpress.com @scottbw
Dear all,
I agree with Scott's argument that it is about the restrictions and not about the price for the information. As the matter of fact, you could still reverse-engineer it or develop it from a lent copy.
However I question whether or not the pay-per-document model is the right approach. In the grand scheme of things it is a contribution to society, for which both contribution and adoption should be stimulated rather than stifled. Now contribution is stimulated but adoption is stifled.
Taking the IETF as an example (after a quick reed), the funding is reversed by having memberships, meeting fees, and meeting sponsors.[1][2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Force [2] https://www.ietf.org/tao.html
This model is far more tailored to broad adoption, as the standards can be offered free of cost as well. Companies involved might for instance justify the expense by regarding it as a marketing opportunity. Let alone the fact that involved companies benefit from having a standard such that other entities can interface. Otherwise there wasn't going to be any standardization effort at the first place, so the benefit is certainly recognized. This inherent benefit might be capitalized to finance the standardization process.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken
Hi all,
The fee for buying a standards document to read is to me the __least problematic aspect of standardisation; in one case I persuaded a national agency to buy a soft copy of a particular standard for every university library in the UK to avoid the whole problem. I think it cost around £3,000 in total :)
Not less problematic, even the least, you say.
I really see: you made me work. How much would they charge you for some senseless compilation of lets say 100 ever changing docs you supposedly needed?
http://www.beuth.de/en/article/standards-flatrate
Standards Flat Rate Standards Flat Rate DIN 50
Product image - Standards Flat Rate DIN 50
The Standards Flat Rate service gives companies and organizations the opportunity to purchase DIN standards as a package at an attractive__ fixed__ price. With Flat Rate 50 you can purchase 50 documents... Read abstract
More Standards Flat Rate: 50 Standards
1.990,00 EUR___
But wait: it is surely € per user and a compare whole contract in german https://www.normenbibliothek.de/pdf/normenbibliothek_nutzungsvertrag.pdf So all together you get an highly attractive offer packaged for lets say a team of 1o fossy developers 2000*2*10€/a; Fsf(e) is having a problem with itself, is my dry comment on it.
Es I remember that a typical university pays fees about 100.000€ for all of their annual users. Nothing which turns to be their property (effectively at least, if this does matter for some), we are just dealing with temporarily reading rights - and only if you do not use it commercially.
So what could I say I in the end: -I try to stay objective, convincing to some limit as my time resources allow me. -and to stay calm as it seems odd to me, what is affirmed here. Not to say trolling. -It is getting paradox. One says it costed 3000€ another one 3 Billion/a. Some say it is the least, others the worst? Are these the man eating effects of propaganda, yet? -How should we than find the truth behind? Maybe the middle. - Just kidding.
Have we any solution for that? Are there careers depending on the public opinion (specs fee is least_ problem) officially tought up to now? Which careers? Who designed them, what fore? That might be key questions.
Regards
15.06.2015, 19:13, "Scott Wilson" scott.wilson@it.ox.ac.uk:
On 15 Jun 2015, at 17:42, Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645@yandex.com wrote:
Hi Micheal,
09.06.2015, 21:05, "Michael Kesper" mkesper@schokokeks.org:
Hi Tom,
Am 07.06.2015 um 01:36 schrieb Tom Blecher:
Hello Scott, Nico, Michael, and others reading,
I studied now your previous statements, thank you for your points first. I think I understood it all very well. No doubt.
So straight forward for the finding on the head: So the propagandist story goes: Some talked of fs as a virus. You know that. For the virus the nature has some remedy. This strategy in loosely words is: alcohol. It kills all virus, even the last one. Be sure! So DIN is for example a master of hygiene. How does it do that? Simply by charging a fee for each specification document. The point that you and might be the rest on this planet do not acknowledge or probably accept the lethal effect on free software, just proves how good this alcohol is or less figuratively how evidently efficient the propaganda is. - Hey are we dealing with propaganda, yes? So may it matter that they are deemed damn powerful imho? Furthermore: So lets leave the picture of disease which it in not. Cause in the end it donates life and not how it is defamed that it devastated whole regions. What hygiene in this means can be fitter denominated as what I would call: free software deserts. That dramatic is the situation we face. And not randomly everywhere DIN has its fingers in https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_... nice all free software free. So back to the topic. I said desert: How is that any relevant to us, one might ask in the words of Micheal: > The issue of money for the paper really seems very small against all the possible pitfalls for implementing them. Relevant is first that it is lethal for the free software, what could be worse? All pitfalls together? No! Nothing! Second: Have you once put into account how much human beings had to spend a whole work live far from free software. I mean considering the above list? Millions? Is that an argument for relevance? And might for each of them govern: what Mr. Stallman said on that there is no excuse for using no free software? So in result we gain a heavy duty to help our fellows, we who we are supposed to as "promoters of free software". What keeps seeming odd, that you and other experts have a strong contrary opinion on it.
Let me just specify one well-known example: OfficeOpen XML [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML ISO was tricked by illegal moves of Microsoft [1] to accept it as a standard. Even if you can get the standard without cost, you will never be able to comply with it, because of its sheer whopping 6000 (!) pages.
There is nothing said about that there could be applied other indefinitely many tricks over more, hindrances for free software. We will not and do not want to treat all of them here. Here we focus on the fee, as the first and sufficient hindrance. I call it lethal.
To write and compile code you need to buy a computer. Software written using a non-gratis computer can still be Free Software, right? Likewise nobody insists on developers only reading gratis books when learning to program. If you buy “Java For Dummies” from a bookstore this doesn’t enforce any restrictions on the users of software you create, so its completely irrelevant when considering whether something is Free Software.
The restrictions we should be concerned about are those that affect the freedoms of the users of the software, typically patented methods, that may be present as encumbrances in standards - in some cases deliberately injected by patent owners.
The fee for buying a standards document to read is to me the least problematic aspect of standardisation; in one case I persuaded a national agency to buy a soft copy of a particular standard for every university library in the UK to avoid the whole problem. I think it cost around £3,000 in total :)
Let me state it clearly: Fees for standard papers (and certification)
may be a problem but that would be solvable.
Says you, says me: Never. Give an example!
Always remember: Free Software does not mean gratis and there is always money involved to create software professionally, about 75% of Linux code is developed in professional context [2].
So what does that prove here exactly? Can not recognize the point in here, and over more do not believe, not to say pretty sure, that there is none. Developing a driver for linux is free of fee, offering it, too. Anyway. As practically no other free software, I know of, is charged. And the fact that there is always money involved these days, is not even to be touched. Regards
Bye Michael
[0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML [1] http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=127 [2] http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/linux-kernel-in-2011-15-million-tota... _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk
scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com scottbw@apache.org http://scottbw.wordpress.com @scottbw
Dear Tom,
On di, 2015-06-16 at 23:12 +0200, Tom Blecher wrote:
But wait: it is surely € per user
The terms and conditions mention:
"The Standards Flat Rate service is only open to companies and tradespeople. Reproduction and resale of documents obtained in the Standards Flat Rate service is prohibited."[1]
So if organized efficiently all ten developers can be part of the same flat rate.
[1] http://www.beuth.de/en/area/lizenzhinweis-flatrate-e
In addition I would assume the standards documents can be kept and used afterwards, allowing say a year to be skipped if no relevant changes occur.
To further reduce the cost I guess it would even be possible to create a summary of the standard, although it is hard to include all the details without infringing on copyright.
And of course this does nothing for the patent licenses.
Es I remember that a typical university pays fees about 100.000€ for all of their annual users. Nothing which turns to be their property (effectively at least, if this does matter for some), we are just dealing with temporarily reading rights - and only if you do not use it commercially.
That's why my university has stopped offering bulk access to standards for both students and employees. If required single standards are bought.
Have we any solution for that? Are there careers depending on the public opinion (specs fee is least_ problem) officially tought up to now? Which careers? Who designed them, what fore? That might be key questions.
In a way the better strategy could be to develop competing, more liberal standards. Although that would again require some level of cooperation of established entities.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken
Hi Nico, -thanks for your points.
-
,if no relevant changes occur.
(occur, they are effectuated by a fs- opponent, right?) politically argued "_free_ software developer" are drawn to the straits of criminalization, as Paul Boddle example is valid for generalize.("leaked") And it is irresponsible to oversee that, is not it to be hold like that?
-about the further proceeding: The thread was longish with much dusty, open ended turnings. So how about it now? I was astonished about your initiative of a recommendation _wiki_ ("practical advises") and would be glad to assist you where I can and where I am allowed to. Obviously you got some better skill how to introduce changes - then me, who is heating up quite to soon and too often. Maybe there are some differences about the scope of such a project? I say let this not become a hindrance, for the wiki. It should be an important brick over which others from others could follow.
So for my case I would fire up parallel a local free software developer's platform/initiative that could flank the wikis project. And I hope it helps, in sense of motivation, by its property as real world use.
It is that I have a software project in the pipe line to be delivered till 1.11.15 where a fs solution in DIN-desert-World is target. So I ask around the entirely new approach. Yes and I guess individual (vs company) freedom desires and free software occasion (replace their engineer's work flows to fs by and by) for that are quite common to be not highly attractive for jailed-in-DIN-desert-companies human beings - to_ break_ out_.
This platform could pose the - arguments and the - claims at the "governmental actors": 1) -to free _concrete real world library that are produced _in DIN-desert-world _from public institutes. (such as some libs delivered from "fraunhofer institute" of which I know and that are in my way ..) 2) -to free_ (with emphasis on individual independence and politically motivated and in contrast to "open") software by _non-discriminating and _effective market conditions and -led by the conditions of the huge sector of public sponsorship in a broader sense. (where in a corrupt environment by design free software has effectively no chance to get even a "license") 3) catching up any_ other upcoming discrimination against fs. For example that they (public) simply agrees upon - as a first relieve - on paying discriminatory DIN-fees on a micro-level. (which is nothing else than the human being developer level)
(This, in question, I point out here for you to understand my motives.)
So how should we produce some _result from it? Some tasks to do for me? Await your orders (from the head quarter) or maybe your " cooperative license conditions" first? (:
Do not care to contact me personally, too, if you wish. Thanks so far.
Regards
17.06.2015, 00:09, "Nico Rikken" nico.rikken@fsfe.org:
Dear Tom,
On di, 2015-06-16 at 23:12 +0200, Tom Blecher wrote:
But wait: it is surely € per user
The terms and conditions mention:
"The Standards Flat Rate service is only open to companies and tradespeople. Reproduction and resale of documents obtained in the Standards Flat Rate service is prohibited."[1]
So if organized efficiently all ten developers can be part of the same flat rate.
[1] http://www.beuth.de/en/area/lizenzhinweis-flatrate-e
In addition I would assume the standards documents can be kept and used afterwards, allowing say a year to be skipped if no relevant changes occur.
To further reduce the cost I guess it would even be possible to create a summary of the standard, although it is hard to include all the details without infringing on copyright.
And of course this does nothing for the patent licenses.
Es I remember that a typical university pays fees about 100.000€ for all of their annual users. Nothing which turns to be their property (effectively at least, if this does matter for some), we are just dealing with temporarily reading rights - and only if you do not use it commercially.
That's why my university has stopped offering bulk access to standards for both students and employees. If required single standards are bought.
Have we any solution for that? Are there careers depending on the public opinion (specs fee is least_ problem) officially tought up to now? Which careers? Who designed them, what fore? That might be key questions.
In a way the better strategy could be to develop competing, more liberal standards. Although that would again require some level of cooperation of established entities.
Kind regards, Nico Rikken ,
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi all,
Am 01.06.2015 um 14:07 schrieb Tom Blecher:
Hi, unfortunately I stick still on the linguist layer at determine what is the fsf position to standards such as din, iso and the like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
Please have a look at fsfe.org/activities/os/def.html to see FSFE's take on open standards.
Best wishes Michael
Hi Tom,
Am 01.06.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Tom Blecher:
Hi Michael, it is the same definition of document-freedoms-day, rigth? And therefore even knowing its wording in two languages I can not make out what might be their position on fee charging for my special case, as explained in my previous posts in this threads. Thanks for compassion. And Regards
Ps: Could not be there more explicit examples, as it _is over more a campaign to the public?
The points are about contents and ways of improving standards. The issue of money for the paper really seems very small against all the possible pitfalls for implementing them.
Best wishes Michael