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

Tom Blecher blecher.tom201645 at
Tue Jun 16 12:21:23 UTC 2015

 one more thought to it, on the initial question where the DIN/ISO.. problem needs to be sorted into.
Given that there is a local actor who asks the fsf(e) for help? They say why? First prove that it is our problem?
In other word: How support, the claim for it, the expectation of it from the side of the mother organization is to justified?
In question is a) by the open standard thing or b) by the original free licensing of text, such as GPL or other free license.
So relying on a) seems to be no secure ground. They say that it were not anyhow their problem, and in the end of the day they blame you sneaking from their resources.
to say that is where a) at the end of the day leads to. Be it propaganda induced or not.
b) Limiting how ever on the simple and original claim that any text should be (better) free licensed, is not so easy to defend. In this case the importance is stressed as these are required components of combined free program source code texts, which should be secure. 

So: "hey, government, publish all DIN/ISO by now on a free License !    
       Even the fsf support it and say it were necessary, do not you?"
Would be the appropriate slogan. And result of this investigation here.

>>  Regarding your point on strategy, I guess practical advise would be
>>  helpful to ease implementation and avoid conflicts. At least I assume
>>  you're referring to the interest of programmers. I guess such a strategy
>>  would have to cover:
>>  0) how to stand against any discrimination, in order to prevent the
>>  upcoming points.
>>  1) how to legally retrieve free-of-cost and free-for-use information on
>>  a standard (including reverse-engineering).
>>  2) how to discover, handle or circumvent patent and copyright issues.
>>  3) how to guarantee the freedoms with redistribution.
>>  4) how to monitor external developments to prevent getting into new
>>  conflicts.
> Yes, 0-3 agreement. 4: do not understand
> --->One has to note that 1a) "free-of-cost information", would require letting fall the open standard definition hold by now by the fsfe and switch to new one.
> This facts had been found out in this thread.
> Honestly I consider the concern that grave that it required a whole internal communication labor. Effectively we found ourselves blowing against the winds of mentioned propaganda, says I. Hopefully it longs not a hundred years, too. Some carefully designed campaign is needed... <---
>>  I'm missing the expertise to fill de details, and furthermore it can be
>>  specific to local legislation, so that would be a
> task for experts to
>>  describe.
> I have given up believing in the experts religions.
> Some groups of local (because the enemy standardization bodies/circles and their reach are national) persons, who are interested by some reason or another, could be supported by an NGO fsfe or fsf. Who comes first chicken or egg?
>>  In a way your last paragraph describes both the issue and a possible
>>  solution to the issue: standards have become essential to our society
>>  and are even included in legislation. As such enabling the forming of
>>  standards seems to be a
>> "governmental act".
> ok. I find this important.

More information about the Discussion mailing list