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

Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645 at
Sat Jun 6 23:36:03 UTC 2015

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
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 at>:
> 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.

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:ür_Normung#Liste_von_Normenaussch.C3.BCsssen_.28Auswahl.29
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?

-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 at>:
>> On 1 Jun 2015, at 15:52, Tom Blecher <blecher.tom201645 at> 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..
> 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 at>:
>>> 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.
>>>>>       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?
>>>> 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>:
>>>>> 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
>>>> _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion at
>>> ,
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Discussion mailing list
>>> Discussion at
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discussion mailing list
>> Discussion at
> OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research
> scott.bradley.wilson at
> scottbw at
> @scottbw

More information about the Discussion mailing list