Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Just judging from what I read iso8601 is based off of rfc3339 (as i assume the "request for comments" phase is before the iso standardization). ISO slightly improved the rfc, but it is largely the same. "Internet RFCs" (if thats the right word for the phenomenon) are free, that's the whole point. ISO has taken the free (as in speech) and is now selling a derivative work.

I think we need to call Stallman on this one. We need Copyleft licenses on our standards to prevent this kind of corporate freeloading.

ISO just sunk in my esteem, silly dinosaurs. I hope they get replaced by something that makes more sense.



> Just judging from what I read iso8601 is based off of rfc3339 (as i assume the "request for comments" phase is before the iso standardization).

No that's not how this works. The ISO one is from the 80s, the IETF one from the 2000s. It's the other way around. The RFC is a profile of the ISO.

> ISO slightly improved the rfc, but it is largely the same.

This is not a true statement.

> ISO has taken the free (as in speech) and is now selling a derivative work.

This is also not a true statement.


thanks for correcting!


While most is true, rfc3339 isn't a profile of iso8601. Both have cases when it's not valid in another.


As far as the ISO is concerned, IT business is just one of many businesses for which they manage the standards process. ISO has to pay the bills somehow, don’t they? If they would not charge the users of the standards the bill would go to governments (effectively taxpayers). As far as taxpayers are concerned, if the industry needs standards, they should pay for them themselves. There is merit to the argument that free standards stimulate innovation, but if governments subsidize the industry, they will prefer to subsidize their national industry, not world wide.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: