> But ICC makes most of their revenue I didn't read through the whole report and I'll admit it's not entirely clear what all the line items are, but (1) the "p

> But ICC makes most of their revenue I didn't read through the whole report and I'll admit it's not entirely clear what all the line items are, but (1) the "program/member services" cost more than the revenue the "program services" generate, and if "product sales" does represent their sales of access to the standards it's well above a third of their revenue. IIUC, they're a nonprofit, so those sales, and the potential loss to a competitor are the difference between solvency and insolvency. > another is because we think this was important that no one was tackling Maybe I'm just tired of the "disruption" economy, which as I see it is (1) find a way to avoid paying for things that other businesses have been paying for, (2) claim you've found a better business model, (3) profit. c.f, Uber, Airbnb, Monkey Parking. In the "old days" you would have partnered with ICC, and built a better product together. But that's not exciting enough. Instead, you're doing it "disruption style" and trying to see what you can get away with. But face it, if you're successful, you're ruining peoples livelihoods. AIUI, these code standards are not some lunchtime conversations put together by politicians, they are specific, detailed requirements done by professionals for professionals, and one of the defining characteristic of being a professional is that you expect to be paid for your work. The question of whether the law can be copyrighted is a valid one. Legal publishing companies have been dealing with this question for a while now (the most common way of citing court cases comes from a private company). But people are also entitled to be paid for their work, and you can't upend the system until you solve that problem too.