3 ms·
I agree the situation is not ideal, and I applaud any effort to try to show that the way the law and the standard are intertwined make for a de facto incorporat
by rowyourboat 13y ago
I agree the situation is not ideal, and I applaud any effort to try to show that the way the law and the standard are intertwined make for a de facto incorporation of the standard into law (which would mean the standard would have to be accessible for free).
It is not clear from the article that that's going on, and it's also not made clear why starting with a copyright violation is a good way to bring about this change. To me, this reeks much more of trying to get publicity than actually trying to change things.
- XODsQToxwi1eOy8 13y agoWell, how do you bring about change in a democratic republic without publicity? Bribery?
- rowyourboat 13y agoThe problem is that the article has its facts all mixed up and glosses over the central point, which is the difference between a law and a standard. Without getting that point across, this is just publicity for its own sake.
- XODsQToxwi1eOy8 13y agoI think you got it all backwards. They are contesting that very distinction, so their position is that there is none, so why should they write as if there was? Their stance is that the other side's distinction is merely in their choice of words, but the facts of the situation are such that the standard plays the same role as a law would, and as such choosing to call it a "standard" rather than a "law" only serves to confuse people, not to describe the actual situation, and so they instead choose words that accurately and clearly describe things as they are from their perspective.