[Foundation-l] Request for approval for a wiki for standards

Sun Jan 8 15:08:34 UTC 2006

Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>>
>>> I want to add that there is a huge need for open and free (as in 
>>> speech as well as beer) standards.  Even modestly priced standards 
>>> from groups like ANSI or ISO can cost more than $200 a piece, and 
>>> I've seen some fairly general standards documents costing more than 
>>> $100,000 each with some incredibly draconian non-disclosure 
>>> agreements.  Even supposedly public standards like the National 
>>> Electrical Code that governs how buildings are wired with 
>>> electricity can cost a couple thousand dollars... and that is a 
>>> matter of law that you have to live by.  
>>
>>
>> To what extent do these standards have the force of law, particularly 
>> in the United States.  When the United States ratifies a treaty it 
>> means that it has effectively made that treaty a part of the law of 
>> the United States.  Since US laws are excluded from copyright we 
>> should be free to include the standards that have been so adopted 
>> into Wikisource.
>>
>> Ec
>
> Treaties are one thing, but I'm also talking civil code that is passed 
> by legislative bodies, including the U.S. Congress.  The National 
> Electrical Code in particular has been adopted almost completely by 
> several state legislatures in the USA and all construction that takes 
> place in those states, by law, must conform to that standard as a 
> result.  What is interesting about this particular set of codes is 
> that the body who wrote the standard is still claiming copyright 
> status over the text of the code, dispite the fact that they have 
> lobbied for and won formal legislative approval for the code by 
> governmental bodies. The actual copyright status is unclear at the 
> moment and subject to legal wrangling, and is going through the court 
> system right now where some people are suing precisely because it is 
> felt that actual laws that we live under should be made available in 
> the public domain.  Because of the murky legal status at the moment, I 
> would recommend that the Wikimedia Foundation and sister projects stay 
> away from standards like this at the moment.  Still, I'm giving this 
> as an example of a standard that should be free, and had it been 
> available in a copyleft license instead of a propritary license by a 
> bunch of people trying to make some quick money, the whole legal mess 
> could have been avoided.
>
> The justification for charging anything for standards at all usually 
> breaks down into the following arguments:
>
> 1) The physical media that the standards are printed on isn't cheap, 
> including web servers to host the content.
> 2) Standards development costs money to develop, including dealing 
> with staff members who have to help organize and maintain the 
> standards documents for long after the development has been completed, 
> and organizing conferences that get the standards committee members 
> together.
> 3) Some industries want to put a higher bar up for people trying to 
> implement the standards, and if you can put up $100,000 for a standard 
> document, you are likely to have some serious additional money to get 
> a business going that would use the standard.
>
> Of these arguments, I really only support the first one, and that is 
> an issue that the Wikimedia Foundation deals with all of the time 
> anyway. This proposal is to have the organization of the standards 
> take place in virtual space, so there is no need to put up a standing 
> committee in 4-star hotels, car rentals, plane tickets, and all of the 
> rest of the expenses that happen with trying to get a group of people 
> physically brought together.  That by itself will substantially reduce 
> the costs of standards development.  If a group still wants to 
> physically get together at a place like Wikimania, they can but it 
> must be done at their own expense and is independent of the 
> development of the standard itself.
>
Hoi,
There was an organisation in the USA that had to do with building 
regulations. They claimed copyright to their document including the 
document that passed into law. This organisation lost its right to claim 
restrictions to the document that became law in a court case. There is 
this thing called precedence.

 From you argument, I understand that because something is not to your 
liking, we should not be interested. We should not be interested even 
thought it is the very people who are asking for this wiki, who are the 
ones that are involved into the standards process ?? Yes, there are some 
people who think it makes sense to ask for payment to get a copy of a 
standards document. There are also some people who take the complete 
opposite position. If anything, I would think from your arguments that 
you would support the people who are arguing for more open access to 
standards.

Why you mention Wikimania is beyond me .. then again thinking of 
Wikimania as a conference where standards are set has some appeal :)

Thanks,
    GerardM