I really sympathise with the point about the standard not be= ing freely accessible.

The same also applies for many of the academic papers behind= things like the auto routers in pcb.

They give away the data model (the bit you need to make data= structures that match the standard, parsers, interface libraries, validato= rs etc....)

They were also able to roll the text of almost all of the hu= ndreds (thousands?) of standard sub-parts and resources, and put them on a = CD, made available for about 380chf. I'm told this was a huge compromis= e for the ISO, and one they had to fight hard for. Normally these parts wou= ld all be individually chargeable (at significant cost).

If you see the sheer size of the standard, you might begin t= o appreciate that the fee they charge is actually very good value.

I'm also told that the fees from this effort are not pay= ing any of the costs of developing the standard - just running the ISO. Act= ual development costs are sponsored by the considerable time that individua= ls and the companies employing them have put in.

We might wish that in some ideologically better world, that = it had been developed and licenced in a way that makes it open and redistri= butible, but this is not reality.

Since I'm not in a position where I have the resources t= o devote to developing gEDA at the moment, my opinion is merely that.

It will ultimately be up to those who are doing the developm= ent work to decide how they approach it, and whether they do or don't c= hoose to obtain and utilise this standard to inform and strengthen their wo= rk.

On 22 Dec 2015 04:39, <gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, DJ Delorie wrote:

Despite of all the huge amount of work the have invested, unless they make<= br> 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 r= oadmap. 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 th= at we should not ignore.

I don't think either of these are valid ways to run a project.=C2=A0 Th= e
ISO standards are always copyright protected and sold for a fee;
that's how ISO funds its operation.=C2=A0 Much of the software you use<= br> today is built on ISO standards - including the C/C++ language that
gEDA uses.

The ISO standards are publically available, for a fee.=C2=A0 They are not "proprietary" or "secret", just not "free of charg= e".

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 o= r 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.=C2=A0 But please do not confuse the "free" in "free software" with "everyt= hing else should be
available to me without charge too".=C2=A0 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 ex= pensive. 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...