Hi all, > The fee for buying a standards document to read is to me the __least > problematic aspect of standardisation; in one case I persuaded a national > agency to buy a soft copy of a particular standard for every university > library in the UK to avoid the whole problem. I think it cost around £3,000 > in total :) > Not less problematic, even the least, you say.
I really see: you made me work. How much would they charge you for some senseless compilation of lets say 100 ever changing docs you supposedly needed? http://www.beuth.de/en/article/standards-flatrate > Standards Flat Rate > Standards Flat Rate DIN 50 >> > Product image - Standards Flat Rate DIN 50 > > The Standards Flat Rate service gives companies and organizations the > opportunity to purchase DIN standards as a package at an attractive__ fixed__ > price. With Flat Rate 50 you can purchase 50 documents... Read abstract > > More > Standards Flat Rate: 50 Standards > > 1.990,00 EUR___ But wait: it is surely € per user and a compare whole contract in german https://www.normenbibliothek.de/pdf/normenbibliothek_nutzungsvertrag.pdf So all together you get an highly attractive offer packaged for lets say a team of 1o fossy developers 2000*2*10€/a; Fsf(e) is having a problem with itself, is my dry comment on it. Es I remember that a typical university pays fees about 100.000€ for all of their annual users. Nothing which turns to be their property (effectively at least, if this does matter for some), we are just dealing with temporarily reading rights - and only if you do not use it commercially. So what could I say I in the end: -I try to stay objective, convincing to some limit as my time resources allow me. -and to stay calm as it seems odd to me, what is affirmed here. Not to say trolling. -It is getting paradox. One says it costed 3000€ another one 3 Billion/a. Some say it is the least, others the worst? Are these the man eating effects of propaganda, yet? -How should we than find the truth behind? Maybe the middle. - Just kidding. Have we any solution for that? Are there careers depending on the public opinion (specs fee is least_ problem) officially tought up to now? Which careers? Who designed them, what fore? That might be key questions. Regards 15.06.2015, 19:13, "Scott Wilson" <[email protected]>: >> On 15 Jun 2015, at 17:42, Tom Blecher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Micheal, >> >> 09.06.2015, 21:05, "Michael Kesper" <[email protected]>: >>> Hi Tom, >>> >>> Am 07.06.2015 um 01:36 schrieb Tom Blecher: >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Institut_f%C3%BCr_Normung#Liste_von_Normenaussch.C3.BCssen_.28Auswahl.29 >>>> 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. >>> >>> Let me just specify one well-known example: OfficeOpen XML [0] >>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML >>> ISO was tricked by illegal moves of Microsoft [1] to accept it as a >>> standard. >>> Even if you can get the standard without cost, you will never be able to >>> comply with it, because of its sheer whopping 6000 (!) pages. >> There is nothing said about that there could be applied other indefinitely >> many tricks over more, hindrances for free software. >> We will not and do not want to treat all of them here. Here we focus on the >> fee, as the first and sufficient hindrance. I call it lethal. > > To write and compile code you need to buy a computer. Software written using > a non-gratis computer can still be Free Software, right? Likewise nobody > insists on developers only reading gratis books when learning to program. If > you buy “Java For Dummies” from a bookstore this doesn’t enforce any > restrictions on the users of software you create, so its completely > irrelevant when considering whether something is Free Software. > > The restrictions we should be concerned about are those that affect the > freedoms of the users of the software, typically patented methods, that may > be present as encumbrances in standards - in some cases deliberately injected > by patent owners. > > The fee for buying a standards document to read is to me the least > problematic aspect of standardisation; in one case I persuaded a national > agency to buy a soft copy of a particular standard for every university > library in the UK to avoid the whole problem. I think it cost around £3,000 > in total :) > >> Let me state it clearly: Fees for standard papers (and certification) >>> may be a problem but that would be solvable. >> Says you, says me: Never. Give an example! >> >>> Always remember: Free Software does not mean gratis and there is always >>> money involved to create software professionally, about 75% of Linux >>> code is developed in professional context [2]. >> >> So what does that prove here exactly? >> Can not recognize the point in here, and over more do not believe, not to >> say pretty sure, that there is none. >> Developing a driver for linux is free of fee, offering it, too. Anyway. As >> practically no other free software, I know of, is charged. >> And the fact that there is always money involved these days, is not even to >> be touched. >> Regards >> >>> Bye >>> Michael >>> >>> [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML >>> [1] http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=127 >>> [2] >>> >>> http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/linux-kernel-in-2011-15-million-total-lines-of-code-and-microsoft-is-a-top-contributor/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Discussion mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >> _______________________________________________ >> Discussion mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > OSS Watch - supporting open source in education and research > http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk > > [email protected] > [email protected] > http://scottbw.wordpress.com > @scottbw _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
