2 ms·

You make a fair point, it is merely a hack to evade a silly rule. Since facts are not copyrightable the "right fix" is to right an identical standard and make t

You make a fair point, it is merely a hack to evade a silly rule. Since facts are not copyrightable the "right fix" is to right an identical standard and make that free, then have people adhere to it rather than the ISO one. That said, I'm pretty sure I could find 800 people who would critique the typography :-). Each usage would be a page that says, "Look at this random page from a standard (page <xxx> by the way), do those serifs really help anything? How is it even readable with the way they break the text in their paragraphs."

rsj_hn 6y ago
> You make a fair point, it is merely a hack to evade a silly rule. Since facts are not copyrightable the "right fix" is to right an identical standard and make that free, then have people adhere to it rather than the ISO one. This is correct. Instead of cutting and pasting the ISO text, you can explain what the conclusions and rules are. In doing so, you will have the opportunity to both add value by explaining things better and subtract value by explaining things in a worse way. I think it will turn out to not be so easy to publish an "identical" standard in your own words, but it's worth the effort to disseminate free standards.