Hi Nico,
-thanks for your points.
-
>,if no relevant changes occur.
(occur, they are effectuated by a fs- opponent, right?)
politically argued "_free_ software developer" are drawn to the straits of
criminalization, as Paul Boddle example is valid for generalize.("leaked") And
it is irresponsible to oversee that, is not it to be hold like that?
-about the further proceeding:
The thread was longish with much dusty, open ended turnings.
So how about it now? I was astonished about your initiative of a recommendation
_wiki_ ("practical advises") and would be glad to assist you where I can and
where I am allowed to. Obviously you got some better skill how to introduce
changes - then me, who is heating up quite to soon and too often.
Maybe there are some differences about the scope of such a project? I say let
this not become a hindrance, for the wiki. It should be an important brick over
which others from others could follow.
So for my case I would fire up parallel a local free software developer's
platform/initiative that could flank the wikis project. And I hope it helps, in
sense of motivation, by its property as real world use.
It is that I have a software project in the pipe line to be delivered till
1.11.15 where a fs solution in DIN-desert-World is target. So I ask around the
entirely new approach. Yes and I guess individual (vs company) freedom desires
and free software occasion (replace their engineer's work flows to fs by and
by) for that are quite common to be not highly attractive for
jailed-in-DIN-desert-companies human beings - to_ break_ out_.
This platform could pose the
- arguments and the
- claims at the "governmental actors":
1) -to free _concrete real world library that are produced _in DIN-desert-world
_from public institutes.
(such as some libs delivered from "fraunhofer institute" of which I
know and that are in my way ..)
2) -to free_ (with emphasis on individual independence and politically
motivated and in contrast to "open") software by _non-discriminating and
_effective market conditions and
-led by the conditions of the huge sector of public sponsorship in a
broader sense.
(where in a corrupt environment by design free software has effectively
no chance to get even a "license")
3) catching up any_ other upcoming discrimination against fs. For example that
they (public) simply agrees upon - as a first relieve - on paying
discriminatory DIN-fees on a micro-level.
(which is nothing else than the human being developer level)
(This, in question, I point out here for you to understand my motives.)
So how should we produce some _result from it? Some tasks to do for me? Await
your orders (from the head quarter) or maybe your " cooperative license
conditions" first? (:
Do not care to contact me personally, too, if you wish. Thanks so far.
Regards
17.06.2015, 00:09, "Nico Rikken" <[email protected]>:
> Dear Tom,
>
> On di, 2015-06-16 at 23:12 +0200, Tom Blecher wrote:
>
>> But wait: it is surely € per user
>
> The terms and conditions mention:
>
> "The Standards Flat Rate service is only open to companies and
> tradespeople. Reproduction and resale of documents obtained in the
> Standards Flat Rate service is prohibited."[1]
>
> So if organized efficiently all ten developers can be part of the same
> flat rate.
>
> [1] http://www.beuth.de/en/area/lizenzhinweis-flatrate-e
>
> In addition I would assume the standards documents can be kept and used
> afterwards, allowing say a year to be skipped if no relevant changes
> occur.
>
> To further reduce the cost I guess it would even be possible to create a
> summary of the standard, although it is hard to include all the details
> without infringing on copyright.
>
> And of course this does nothing for the patent licenses.
>
>> 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.
>
> That's why my university has stopped offering bulk access to standards
> for both students and employees. If required single standards are
> bought.
>
>> 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.
>
> In a way the better strategy could be to develop competing, more liberal
> standards. Although that would again require some level of cooperation
> of established entities.
>
> Kind regards,
> Nico Rikken
> ,
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
