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

[Nico Rikken]

Dear Tom,

I called it 'practical advise' and in that context I thought of a few
wiki-pages or articles. And if further questions arise or advise is
wanted the entity could for instance contact the fsf(e). I don't
consider the fsf(e) to take part necessarily, it is between the
standardization body and the entity implementing it. (I guess this lack
of a community amongst users is part of the reason why this issue hasn't
been addressed.)

Do you consider the inherent, free-of-cost licensing of related patents
to be part of A in your example? Because then the distinction is between
the freedom of the standards document and the license-freedom related to
implementing in relationship to known patents.

Your bigger-picture stance makes sense, but as the standardization
bodies generally don't control the patent licenses cooperation of other
parties is required. Especially for freeing the standards.

Kind regards,
Nico Rikken

On di, 2015-06-16 at 14:21 +0200, Tom Blecher wrote:
> Hi,
>  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.
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>  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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-------------- 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/20150616/66f33d6e/attachment.sig>