<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/7/24 12:38, Simon Phipps wrote:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAA4ffp8f9gZipRGXztvCoRzFVpMV=GYKGUK7x4kxYk8gQyOw7Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi!</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at
5:09 PM Roland Turner via License-discuss <<a
href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
It's not a revenue question. The important issue is that all
copies of <br>
an interoperability standard must say the same thing, or <br>
interoperability itself is defeated.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Having watched the recent debacle at ISO over Schematron,
PDF and other specs, and observed the impassioned positions
of the various standards entities arguing within the ISO
special committee on free availability of specifications, I
can assure you that it's very much a revenue question for
the <i>de jure</i> standards organisations who are still
living in a prior millennium and funding their activities
from its norms.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>You are confusing two separate issues:</p>
<ol>
<li>That a handful of [mostly older] technical standards bodies
are insisting upon per-copy payments for [most] standards, as
the basis of their business model, even when transferred
electronically.<br>
</li>
<li>That technical interoperability standards must distributed
without their meaning being changed, in order for them to be a
basis for interoperability.</li>
</ol>
<p>#1 is obviously true, and I didn't claim otherwise. You are
responding as though I claimed that #1 wasn't happening.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The need for interoperability standards to not have their meaning
changed applies equally to standards organisations which:</p>
<ul>
<li>have never charged for their standards (IETF as the obvious
example)</li>
<li>no longer charge for most/all of their standards when
transferred electronically (e.g. ITU)</li>
<li>still charge for most/all of their standards, even when
transferred electronically (e.g. ISO and its national members)</li>
</ul>
<p>None of the freedoms which OSI cares about are harmed by this
fact by itself. Questions about whether licensees are free to
distribute unmodified copies, or derived works (e.g. an updated or
modified standard) under a plainly different name, and what
additional terms might apply to such redistribution, would appear
to be very much of interest to OSI, and is what appears to be
under discussion here.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>- Roland</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>