Comments on: The “myth” of free standards http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/ Strategies for Internet citizens Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:33:03 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Bookmarks about Interesting http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/#comment-125499 Bookmarks about Interesting Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:45:06 +0000 http://jonudell.wordpress.com/?p=547#comment-125499 [...] - bookmarked by 5 members originally found by earth2marsh on 2008-09-16 The “myth” of free standards http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/ - bookmarked by 3 members [...] [...] – bookmarked by 5 members originally found by earth2marsh on 2008-09-16 The “myth” of free standards http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/ – bookmarked by 3 members [...]

]]> By: Aesop’s fable on Standards, RMS and Selling Free Software, Release Coordination: links 25-08-2008 | Commercial Open Source Software http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/#comment-125091 Aesop’s fable on Standards, RMS and Selling Free Software, Release Coordination: links 25-08-2008 | Commercial Open Source Software Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:59:28 +0000 http://jonudell.wordpress.com/?p=547#comment-125091 [...] Belly and the Members - “Aesop” on Free Standards (via Jon Udell), excerpted from The Myth of Free Standards: Giving Away the Farm. I totally agree on the [...] [...] Belly and the Members – “Aesop” on Free Standards (via Jon Udell), excerpted from The Myth of Free Standards: Giving Away the Farm. I totally agree on the [...]

]]> By: Pam Samuelson http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/#comment-125035 Pam Samuelson Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:39:08 +0000 http://jonudell.wordpress.com/?p=547#comment-125035 I have argued in an article entitled "Questioning Copyrights in Standards" that copyright protection should not be available to adopted standards. This article is available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925044&rec=1&srcabs=924527 I have argued in an article entitled “Questioning Copyrights in Standards” that copyright protection should not be available to adopted standards. This article is available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925044&rec=1&srcabs=924527

]]> By: Peter Murray http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/#comment-125025 Peter Murray Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:26:35 +0000 http://jonudell.wordpress.com/?p=547#comment-125025 It is worth noting that <a href="http://www.cni.org/Hforums/niso-l/2000/0011.html" rel="nofollow">eight years ago NISO announced that all of its standards documents would be made available free of charge on the web</a>. NISO, the <a href="http://www.niso.org/" rel="nofollow">National Information Standards Organization</a>, has been designated by ANSI as the U.S. representative to ISO TC 46 (information and documentation). Now, most of a decade later, they have kept their standards free with a business model based on membership fees, printed versions of standards, and workshops in support of the standards. So it is possible to create good standards and make them available free of charge. It is worth noting that eight years ago NISO announced that all of its standards documents would be made available free of charge on the web. NISO, the National Information Standards Organization, has been designated by ANSI as the U.S. representative to ISO TC 46 (information and documentation). Now, most of a decade later, they have kept their standards free with a business model based on membership fees, printed versions of standards, and workshops in support of the standards. So it is possible to create good standards and make them available free of charge.

]]> By: Reed Hedges http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/#comment-125017 Reed Hedges Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:25:03 +0000 http://jonudell.wordpress.com/?p=547#comment-125017 Software standards aren't always free. IETF with RFCs pretty much pioneered this I think. But fortunately, they have sometimes been documented and reverse-engineered and rewritten on the web-- these are often better than the official standard because they can include notes on implementation quirks, bugs and extensions. Software standards aren’t always free. IETF with RFCs pretty much pioneered this I think.

But fortunately, they have sometimes been documented and reverse-engineered and rewritten on the web– these are often better than the official standard because they can include notes on implementation quirks, bugs and extensions.

]]> By: orcmid http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/#comment-125010 orcmid Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:32:31 +0000 http://jonudell.wordpress.com/?p=547#comment-125010 I don't think we have to worry about bureacratic additions. I just looked into a standard, published this week (ISO/IEC 24754:2008), that was started in 2005, has 7 pages of text, and costs about $100 for either hard copy or PDF. It strikes me that this process is going to be self-limiting, especially in competition with organizations like W3C, OASIS, ECMA, and IETF that do make all of their specifications available for free. I don’t think we have to worry about bureacratic additions. I just looked into a standard, published this week (ISO/IEC 24754:2008), that was started in 2005, has 7 pages of text, and costs about $100 for either hard copy or PDF.

It strikes me that this process is going to be self-limiting, especially in competition with organizations like W3C, OASIS, ECMA, and IETF that do make all of their specifications available for free.

]]> By: Greg http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/#comment-125006 Greg Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:24:23 +0000 http://jonudell.wordpress.com/?p=547#comment-125006 I certainly agree with the need for free and open standards, I do not agree the government needs to be gov't funded. Non-profits supported by doaners I can live with, but lets not add gov't bureaucracy to the standards process if we can avoid it. I certainly agree with the need for free and open standards, I do not agree the government needs to be gov’t funded. Non-profits supported by doaners I can live with, but lets not add gov’t bureaucracy to the standards process if we can avoid it.

]]> By: Dan Lewis http://blog.jonudell.net/2008/08/19/the-myth-of-free-standards/#comment-125005 Dan Lewis Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:43:23 +0000 http://jonudell.wordpress.com/?p=547#comment-125005 If the recent ISO/IEC DIS 29500 debacle has taught us anything, it's that the imprimatur of a standards organization in the software world is not worth the paper it's printed on. Instead of serving as vital clearinghouses for the new crowd of stakeholders, they are corrupted by their moneyed interests. I hope he realized the irony in arguing that the goal of charging for standards is to pay for standards organizations. I also found the scaremongering about free culture/free as in beer to be unconvincing: 'By making standards available at no cost, we are effectively saying to users, "An army of volunteers just spent colossal amounts of time and money on developing this standard. It should be an essential part of your product development, one of the important requirements for market acceptance, and the blueprints for the utmost safety and quality of your product. Now, here it is for free." How credible are our statements of value and integrity if we give standards away for free? Imagine buying a new washing machine. You are at the store, reading the features listed on each machine and comparing price tags. You come to a machine that claims to do everything that the others do, but it costs $300 less. Do you quickly write a check and take it home, or do you get suspicious and wonder why in a whole store of $500-600 washing machines, is this one $200? Standards users will wonder, "in a world full of information that costs money, why are standards given away for free?" ' There's an obvious public interest in cross-business industry standards. Why not just make standards organizations publicly funded, refuse private money, and subsidize distribution costs (selling printing and shipping at cost, and serving PDFs for free)? If the recent ISO/IEC DIS 29500 debacle has taught us anything, it’s that the imprimatur of a standards organization in the software world is not worth the paper it’s printed on. Instead of serving as vital clearinghouses for the new crowd of stakeholders, they are corrupted by their moneyed interests.

I hope he realized the irony in arguing that the goal of charging for standards is to pay for standards organizations. I also found the scaremongering about free culture/free as in beer to be unconvincing:

‘By making standards available at no cost, we are effectively saying to users, “An army of volunteers just spent colossal amounts of time and money on developing this standard. It should be an essential part of your product development, one of the important requirements for market acceptance, and the blueprints for the utmost safety and quality of your product. Now, here it is for free.” How credible are our statements of value and integrity if we give standards away for free? Imagine buying a new washing machine. You are at the store, reading the features listed on each machine and comparing price tags. You come to a machine that claims to do everything that the others do, but it costs $300 less. Do you quickly write a check and take it home, or do you get suspicious and wonder why in a whole store of $500-600 washing machines, is this one $200? Standards users will wonder, “in a world full of information that costs money, why are standards given away for free?” ‘

There’s an obvious public interest in cross-business industry standards. Why not just make standards organizations publicly funded, refuse private money, and subsidize distribution costs (selling printing and shipping at cost, and serving PDFs for free)?

]]>