Endreport: Is standardization deemed to be against FS and how can it be tackled?

Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645 at yandex.com
Thu Jul 9 21:01:01 UTC 2015

Hi there,
here comes the provisional end report of it.
here you get directly to the results:https://softwareforhartz4entertainer.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/237/#chapter4


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.

-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)



More information about the Discussion mailing list