3 ms·

As a side-side note, the same happens for "International Standards" most if not all ISO documents: https://www.iso.org/ https://www.iso.org/ are available onl

by jaclaz 8y ago

As a side-side note, the same happens for "International Standards" most if not all ISO documents: https://www.iso.org/ https://www.iso.org/ are available only for a fee (and are not redistributable), so when you see a product proudly presented as being conformant to "ISO xxxx" you have no real way (as a user) to know what (the heck) it is conformant to. In some occasions I needed to check these, finding out how the tests actually performed on some items have nothing (or little) to do with the intended use or on how the actual item is advertised or perceived.

F_r_k 8y ago
It's illegal, but I would love to see a torrent with all these iso norms out there
- delfinom 8y ago
  How is it illegal? The specs are copyrighted material written and maintained by private entities not government. And a immense majority (many thousands) of these specs are not required by government. I believe just in the case of this lawsuit it involves specs that some laws required.
  - M2Ys4U 8y ago
    I suspect that the person you are replying to is noting that using a torrent of ISO specs would be illegal, not that the ISO has copyright over the specs is illegal.
rayiner 8y ago
ISO is composed of people and companies that develop standards for other people to use. What is wrong with charging for that? What’s the other business model for paying for that effort? The “open” and “free” HTML standardization process, for example, has totally broken down, and now is “might makes right” (whatever Chrome does is the standard). Would that be preferable for ISO standards? It costs money to develop standards. Paying a fee to access them (so long as you are not forced to by law) is just about the least objectionable way of paying for the work to be done.
- alexchamberlain 8y ago
  You could charge a fee to the companies displaying the mark or those able to certify it, whilst making the standard free to read.
  - delfinom 8y ago
    But there are hundreds of ISO specs. In a product design alone, I may have 10-15 ISO specs, we don't stick on 10-15 labels on the outside and it would be ridiculous to stick on a sticker for a spec that just details minimum hole size spacing in a circuit board.
    - rspeer 8y ago
      I enjoy claiming that code I write is "ISO 3 compliant" when I pick arbitrary numbers from a limited set of nice arbitrary numbers.
delfinom 8y ago
So? Its the same as hundreds of thousands of standards you may not even heard of, used from your cars, appliances, houses, public utilities, etc. Most of it is meant for the engineers involved and not for the end customer. But marketing people sometimes slap on the label. These specs are driven by company to company relationships largely and not government. Heck, the law requires a car diagnostic bus for emission testing, but it never mandated the bus standard, so theres 2-3 main comm bus specs companies follow instead. Like ISO9001, popular among companies is a process spec that requries auditing that ensures your company has a documented process for engineering, production, etc among other things. Companies slap ISO9001 compliant on fucking everything. But ultimately it means shit to an end user and only company to company relations do they care a little.
- jaclaz 8y ago
  >Like ISO9001, popular among companies is a process spec that requries auditing that ensures your company has a documented process for engineering, production, etc among other things. Companies slap ISO9001 compliant on fucking everything. But ultimately it means shit to an end user and only company to company relations do they care a little. Sure, but that is a "process spec" (that the marketing people have managed to transmit as representing "better quality" whilst in reality, and at the most it represents "same quality"). I was talking more about "product specs" and "tests" performed on goods/materials. If I tell you that reaction to fire of a product is: Class B-s1, d0 (UNI EN 13501-1; EN 13823; EN ISO 11925-2) you have no way to understand (nor does usually the technician that may be assisting you) what (the heck) it means. You will find tables giving you the corresponding classification in your country (so yes, the government is involved as well), usually different from the ISO standard and you will know that B means "not likely" inflammable, the s1 means that it emits "a little" smoke when in fire and d0 means that combustion will not produce burning drops of material, but you don't know in which conditions the tests have been made. To have an idea of the mess, check this: http://www.cdukltd.co.uk/uploads/download/NatTranslEuroclasses20061018Mainclassb.pdf http://www.cdukltd.co.uk/uploads/download/NatTranslEuroclass... When you check (indirectly, like from here): http://fr.polymerinsights.com/testing/flammability/en-iso-11925 http://fr.polymerinsights.com/testing/flammability/en-iso-11... how the tests are performed, instantly, and no matter what ISO, your government or any local Law says, you will want to have A1 materials (non-combustible) only in your home. The test that classified the material as "B-s1, d0" (among the best classifications after the A1 or non-combustible) equates more or less to say that your toddler with a cigarette lighter did not manage to put your house on fire in 30 seconds (but it says nothing about a larger flame or a more extended time).

by jaclaz 8y ago

F_r_k 8y ago

It's illegal, but I would love to see a torrent with all these iso norms out there

delfinom 8y ago
How is it illegal? The specs are copyrighted material written and maintained by private entities not government. And a immense majority (many thousands) of these specs are not required by government. I believe just in the case of this lawsuit it involves specs that some laws required.
- M2Ys4U 8y ago
  I suspect that the person you are replying to is noting that using a torrent of ISO specs would be illegal, not that the ISO has copyright over the specs is illegal.

rayiner 8y ago

ISO is composed of people and companies that develop standards for other people to use. What is wrong with charging for that? What’s the other business model for paying for that effort? The “open” and “free” HTML standardization process, for example, has totally broken down, and now is “might makes right” (whatever Chrome does is the standard). Would that be preferable for ISO standards? It costs money to develop standards. Paying a fee to access them (so long as you are not forced to by law) is just about the least objectionable way of paying for the work to be done.

alexchamberlain 8y ago
You could charge a fee to the companies displaying the mark or those able to certify it, whilst making the standard free to read.
- delfinom 8y ago
  But there are hundreds of ISO specs. In a product design alone, I may have 10-15 ISO specs, we don't stick on 10-15 labels on the outside and it would be ridiculous to stick on a sticker for a spec that just details minimum hole size spacing in a circuit board.
  - rspeer 8y ago
    I enjoy claiming that code I write is "ISO 3 compliant" when I pick arbitrary numbers from a limited set of nice arbitrary numbers.

delfinom 8y ago

So? Its the same as hundreds of thousands of standards you may not even heard of, used from your cars, appliances, houses, public utilities, etc. Most of it is meant for the engineers involved and not for the end customer. But marketing people sometimes slap on the label. These specs are driven by company to company relationships largely and not government. Heck, the law requires a car diagnostic bus for emission testing, but it never mandated the bus standard, so theres 2-3 main comm bus specs companies follow instead. Like ISO9001, popular among companies is a process spec that requries auditing that ensures your company has a documented process for engineering, production, etc among other things. Companies slap ISO9001 compliant on fucking everything. But ultimately it means shit to an end user and only company to company relations do they care a little.

jaclaz 8y ago
>Like ISO9001, popular among companies is a process spec that requries auditing that ensures your company has a documented process for engineering, production, etc among other things. Companies slap ISO9001 compliant on fucking everything. But ultimately it means shit to an end user and only company to company relations do they care a little. Sure, but that is a "process spec" (that the marketing people have managed to transmit as representing "better quality" whilst in reality, and at the most it represents "same quality"). I was talking more about "product specs" and "tests" performed on goods/materials. If I tell you that reaction to fire of a product is: Class B-s1, d0 (UNI EN 13501-1; EN 13823; EN ISO 11925-2) you have no way to understand (nor does usually the technician that may be assisting you) what (the heck) it means. You will find tables giving you the corresponding classification in your country (so yes, the government is involved as well), usually different from the ISO standard and you will know that B means "not likely" inflammable, the s1 means that it emits "a little" smoke when in fire and d0 means that combustion will not produce burning drops of material, but you don't know in which conditions the tests have been made. To have an idea of the mess, check this: http://www.cdukltd.co.uk/uploads/download/NatTranslEuroclasses20061018Mainclassb.pdf http://www.cdukltd.co.uk/uploads/download/NatTranslEuroclass... When you check (indirectly, like from here): http://fr.polymerinsights.com/testing/flammability/en-iso-11925 http://fr.polymerinsights.com/testing/flammability/en-iso-11... how the tests are performed, instantly, and no matter what ISO, your government or any local Law says, you will want to have A1 materials (non-combustible) only in your home. The test that classified the material as "B-s1, d0" (among the best classifications after the A1 or non-combustible) equates more or less to say that your toddler with a cigarette lighter did not manage to put your house on fire in 30 seconds (but it says nothing about a larger flame or a more extended time).