[Openicc] ISO - Open vs. Free (was Linux CM ideology)

[Chris Lilley]

On Friday, February 11, 2011, 2:37:56 PM, Leonard wrote:


LR> While it is true that the ISO charges for their standards, there
LR> is NO CHARGE to participate in the DEVELOPMENT of that standard. 
LR> So ANYONE can help define it - and if you help, you get a copy for free (and early access!)

LR> On the other hand, groups such as the ICC and the W3C CHARGE for
LR> membership (so that only those that can pay, can play) BUT their results are freely downloadable.

Small correction - W3C charges for Membership, yes. 

Comments are solicited and accepted from the Public at all stages of standard development. without charge (your comment seemsd to indicate that all participation at W3C was subject to a charge which, as you well know, is not correct).

The disposition of comments is publicly available.

The specifications are publicly available at all stages of development, not just the end result.

In theory W3C also will sell printed copies, on demand. I say in theory because in fifteen years at W3C I have not seen one single request for a bound, printed copy.

LR> Personally, I think the ISO model is the better model since I
LR> believe that WIDE INPUT from the world's experts (regardless of
LR> their ability to pay membership fees) creates better standards for
LR> users in the long run.   

That would be the W3C model you are describing.

Folks, sorry for the standards-body noise. We now return you to your regular programming. Which I am reading with interest, by the way.

-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups