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

[Carsten Agger]

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 <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?
> 1. 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 at 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 at fsfeurope.org <mailto:Discussion at fsfeurope.org>
>> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20150601/2ff8cbcc/attachment.html>