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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
