X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 22 Dec 2015 04:26:49 +0100 (CET)
X-X-Sender:	igor2 AT igor2priv
To:	"Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
X-Debug:	to=geda-user AT delorie DOT com from="gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu"
From:	gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Proposing a New Hierarchical Data Structure?
In-Reply-To:	<CAJXU7q9dU=z5KZmgsh+Vau4zZNfEh4Awr5xdzL=6xhimLYVNLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1512220421160.9035@igor2priv>
References:	<CAOFvGD6OiYxcGkOiQRVnvXW3TLs42bt7PE5Ot9s09hsukYicKA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20151221030451 DOT 02399163eb3e40f21c622c41 AT gmail DOT com> <CAOP4iL1PTdeCZdT+SthHwQtaxC4x06MbBQmxRcK3DZyQ-jfw=Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20151221203331 DOT 20837 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
	<CAJXU7q_XOJStJXhD547xW-+XROkBhctmMAWB-jm0cez5UvgZ7w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <CAOP4iL1ri4UMeYr01Af-AH005DkLboKO72nGao+ByGmqA51W-A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20151222002012 DOT a88d7fe32a9336855eccd1d0 AT gmail DOT com>
	<CAJXU7q9dU=z5KZmgsh+Vau4zZNfEh4Awr5xdzL=6xhimLYVNLw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
User-Agent:	Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:

>
>The data model is freely available in a machine readable language (Express).
>(Express is human readable too, but it only really tells you structure /
>validation rules... You need the standard to understand how to apply the
>structures, and what the fields mean).
>
>Your library may be able to provide access to a copy, depending on its
>subscriptions.
>
>The charge for access is indeed a pain, but it's not huge. Especially when
>compared to the actual monetary value of developer time required to do
>anything with it (even if that developer time is mostly volunteered).

I think it's not about the charge. It is about the openness, availability. 
I don't think free software should build on non-free standards (unless 
it's absoltuely impossible to avoid).

Despite of all the huge amount of work the have invested, unless they make 
the work really publicly available, I'd prefer not building on it.  Even 
if it makes reinventing it - in a free form, where the format 
specification can be fully and legally distributed with the software.

<snip>

>In other words, the standard is like an arcane reference manual... it
>contains very little written with the aim of explaining how to actally USE
>the information model in a non domain expert friendly way.

That's not a good reason to make it non-free.

- Raw text -