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

Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645 at yandex.com
Fri Jun 12 10:10:56 UTC 2015

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)! (; 

-------- Beginning of forwarded message  --------
07.06.2015, 01:41, "Tom Blecher" <blecher.tom201645 at 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
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 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.

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:
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.

Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
-------- End of forwarded message --------

More information about the Discussion mailing list