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

[Nico Rikken]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 213 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20150615/433d1f57/attachment.sig>