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 05:39:11 +0100 (CET)
X-X-Sender:	igor2 AT igor2priv
To:	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:	<201512220412.tBM4CJxb018546@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID:	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1512220528100.9035@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>
	<alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1512220421160 DOT 9035 AT igor2priv> <201512220412 DOT tBM4CJxb018546 AT envy DOT delorie 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 Mon, 21 Dec 2015, DJ Delorie wrote:

>
>> 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.
>
> I.e. you want someone to either steal the work for you, or do a great
> deal of work on your behalf without any compensation?

Nope. As far as I understood, we are considering the very first step of a 
roadmap. The first step is about how to pick a file format or data 
structure. Peter proposed a specific standard and listed a lot of pros.

My point is only this: not having the standard freely available is a con 
that we should not ignore.

>
> I don't think either of these are valid ways to run a project.  The
> ISO standards are always copyright protected and sold for a fee;
> that's how ISO funds its operation.  Much of the software you use
> today is built on ISO standards - including the C/C++ language that
> gEDA uses.
>
> The ISO standards are publically available, for a fee.  They are not
> "proprietary" or "secret", just not "free of charge".

Ok, so if I buy it once, can I just include a copy in the documentation of 
the software dostribution? I assume not. For me this makes it non-free,
not the price I paid for it.

And I do hate when this happens with any of the standards, including ANSI 
or ISO standards, including C. I still do use C, but that doesn't mean I 
have to like or deny the non-free aspects.

> So if you want to refrain from using this standard because you feel
> it's too expensive for you to purchase, fine.  But please do not
> confuse the "free" in "free software" with "everything else should be
> available to me without charge too".  Even the FSF charges a fee for
> its software, to fund its activities.

I did not say I wanted to refrain from using the standard because it was 
expensive. It was your (mis)interpretation. I said a drawback of the 
standard is that it is non-free (not mainly in the charge sense).

I am wondering how this thread went into the usual senseless geda flamewar 
this fast...

- Raw text -