[HN Gopher] European standards bodies are inaccessible to Open S...
___________________________________________________________________
European standards bodies are inaccessible to Open Source projects
Author : rbanffy
Score : 274 points
Date : 2023-05-18 09:03 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.opensource.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.opensource.org)
| popcorncowboy wrote:
| Yet more CRA effects that further cut off open source, grass
| roots, bottom ups, small competitors, leaving only cashed up
| commercial incumbents at the table? I am shocked. Shocked. But
| hey, security.
| [deleted]
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Steal the information and publish it.
| gradschoolfail wrote:
| Paging Anna & the perfidious BRICs
| samtho wrote:
| This feels like building codes in the US, you can read the law
| but the law points to expensive to acquire materials required to
| comply. This should be illegal and people should be pissed. I
| don't care if lawmakers contract private industry to write
| standards (within reason, there are some perverse incentives at
| play, but I digress), however, laws and all supporting materials
| need to be free to read and open to all for a free and fair
| society. We spend so much effort regulating and gatekeeping under
| the guise of safety and security but we are achieving neither.
| Information is power and anytime we as humans have had
| significant information asymmetry, there exists an out-group that
| does not have access and due to this restriction, have diminished
| power.
|
| I've likened closed building codes to the way the Catholic Church
| ran in the Middle Ages. Only the clergy could read Latin and
| found they could spew all sorts of nonsense culminating in "if
| you want a guaranteed trip to Heaven, pay us." Which sounds a lot
| like, "if you want to pass building inspection, pay us."
|
| Organizations (and lawmakers who enable them) that engage in this
| sort of sanctioned rent-seeking should be dismantled and we
| should not tolerate them in our society.
| EFruit wrote:
| If they won't let us SEE their standards, let alone collaborate
| on them, we should just write our own.
|
| Membership for FOSS developers: $0 Membership for anyone even
| tangentiality related to a massive corp: Call us for pricing
| details.
|
| Fund the whole organization by gouging megacorps.
| Renaud wrote:
| Standards should be accessible and cheap.
|
| It would be of the EU's interest to make all standards available
| for free or a nominal fee to certain types of organisations :
| open source, startups, something like: if you make less than
| X-million euros in turnover per year, you get a license.
|
| Since that's probably not happening any time soon, the pdf could
| find their way into z-library, as an alternative...
| fakedang wrote:
| Let the standards setting people in Brussels and Strasbourg fix
| a damn HQ in one place, so that savings can be made from the
| traveling expenses alone. Then use those savings to ensure that
| every company gets access to the licenses free of charge. How
| about that?
|
| Nah, but gotta protect their big business I guess.
| leoedin wrote:
| This really pisses me off. European harmonised standards are
| effectively _legislation_. You can 't sell a product in the EU
| without complying with them. Yet they're behind a really
| expensive pay-wall. If you buy the standard from ISO it's often
| EUR150 - and often that's just to find out if you even have to
| comply.
|
| Even working out which standards you should comply with is a
| nightmare - often they reference each other, so then you have a
| cascading web of standards compliance which never seems to end.
| And viewing each standard, even if it's just to see if it
| matters, costs EUR150.
|
| The standards are often written by businesses in the industry -
| the authors are on their payroll. ISO isn't even paying these
| people.
|
| Standards should be free and open, or have no legal weight.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Congratulations! You've discovered protectionism and one of its
| many forms. The worst part is that this type of legislation is
| preventing east and south european development as well as
| preventing us companies from entering the eu market.
| Essentially by forcing endless amounts of standards that cant
| be met by developing member states due high entry barriers or
| non member states due to differences in standards the german
| and french markets are protected.
|
| Oddly enough subpar chinese products are OK. Hint: Germany
| needs access to china's markets.
| wazoox wrote:
| No, the EU is entirely sold to big corp. US big corps are
| doing fine, thank you, but small EU companies can go to hell.
| I'm developing software in a French 10 people shop, do you
| think we have any resources to spend on standards, and a
| legal department to check that we're properly conforming to
| them ? Of course not. That means that we can't hope to sell
| our products to any public service, government or EU agency,
| or any big company. These very big, very lucrative markets
| are strictly restricted to big corps. Microsoft, Google and
| Amazon are doing fine in this environment.
| pas wrote:
| can you elaborate on this with some examples? some
| standards are important, right? the phone charger
| standardization seems useful, no? it would be ideal to have
| just a single wall socket/plug, no? similarly for EV
| supercharger connector. and so on. these are the things
| that get standardized at the EU level, as far as I know, so
| I'm very interested in counter-examples. thanks!
| wazoox wrote:
| I can elaborate with a very precise example. Of course
| standards are fine and important. But the amount of red
| tape they require is mind-boggling. I know of a small
| company who invested about 1 million EUR to build their
| software; they then took 18 months and another million
| EUR to make it stamped with some standard, to be able to
| sell their software to some government administration.
| The second million was spent entirely on legal fees,
| documentations, etc. They didn't change a line in their
| software. Nobody checked that the software actually does
| what it's supposed to do; only that it facially complies
| with a bunch of bureaucratically defined requirements,
| that may or may not be of any use or significance for the
| people using the software in the end.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Lord almighty
| pas wrote:
| can you please name the standard in question?
|
| also, it's completely okay if no code had to be changed
|
| also there are quality assurance and process related
| standards, that are about documentation...
|
| and let's not forget that a government can usually
| require that the vendor sign paperwork, which makes sure
| the officers of the vendor are criminally liable
|
| ... I'm not in favor of them, nor in favor of spending
| millions on legal and documentation fees, but without
| knowing more it's yet another "public procurement bad"
| story (which is completely believable! I mean 1M EUR
| compliance cost nowadays is not that unusual)
| marcosdumay wrote:
| If standardizing something is a public good, then why are
| the standard documentation kept locked?
|
| Nobody on this thread said a word against
| standardization. It's really important. You are replying
| for some comment that isn't there.
| CactusOnFire wrote:
| I'm neither European nor do I have to deal with their
| standards, but this seems like a false equivocation.
|
| Physical Engineering standards serve a different purpose
| than software standards. Engineering standards are a
| social contract we all buy into because of the incredibly
| cost and complexity of designing physical infrastructure.
|
| Software is not constrained by the same standards. It's
| alright if the firmware of a coffee machine and a cell
| phone run on a different standard, but it's going to
| cause problems if each of my sockets has a different
| grounding.
| paulddraper wrote:
| I mean...there is an analogy there.
| ochoseis wrote:
| Making standards accessible to small businesses smells like
| a startup idea...
| davedx wrote:
| I mean I'm quite cynical about everything these days but this
| strikes me as over cynical. The EU charging standard forcing
| Apple to standardize their chargers helps consumers and
| hardly hurts Apple. I am fairly sure there are tons of
| standards that have a net benefit on the lives and economies
| of EU member states. Do you have some examples of this N
| Europe protectionism?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Apple and VW can afford to conform to complex birocratic
| standards. They have hundreds/thousands of people on the
| payroll just for that. Smaller companies or companies from
| poorer countries can't.
|
| A lot of companies in Eastern Europe were obliterated when
| joining the EU and our local market was flooded with goods
| made in the west since the local ones weren't "up to
| standard" anymore. Even today we still have a huge trade
| deficit with the west as we import far more than we export.
| gumballindie wrote:
| All you need is a short walk around east european
| supermarkets and you'll notice there are rarely any east
| eu supermarket brands and few east european made goods in
| them. Despite the quality being far higher than say india
| or china somehow east eu products dont meet eu
| "standards" and as such are not good enough. But that's
| not an issue for counterfeit chinese goods made using
| slave labour.
|
| Not to mention that west european products are often of
| lower quality than in their home countries, and more
| expensive.
| toyg wrote:
| A lot of those "western European" products are actually
| manufactured in Eastern Europe by cheap Eastern European
| labor. You don't have brands but have jobs, often
| displaced from Western countries.
|
| This was always the trade-off for letting Eastern
| countries in the bloc: they were meant to provide new
| markets and new labor for (largely German) established
| companies. In exchange, they got loads of money to raise
| their infrastructural standards and overall quality of
| life.
|
| If these countries think they're not happy with the
| arrangement anymore, they're more than welcome to leave.
| Like what happened with Brexit, they would remove a
| number of political headaches, hence fostering deeper
| integration between remaining countries.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> A lot of those "western European" products are
| actually manufactured in Eastern Europe by cheap Eastern
| European labor._
|
| No. If you go to any supermarket in the east you'll find
| mostly German or French made products on the food
| shelves. A lot of the local made products became
| "illegal" after joining the EU. Now it's better and we
| have more local products but the trade deficit is still
| huge.
|
| _> political headaches_
|
| Funny how poor eastern countries not wanting to be abused
| by rich western ones and their corporations and using
| their legal voting rights in the EU, are considered
| "political headaches".
|
| Ohh, poor rich western companies. How dares the est stand
| up for themselves and not bend over to their rich
| overlords?
|
| The west should have realized that you can't have a
| balanced democratic union when some countries are
| constantly being milked and treated as second class
| citizens in a theoretically equalitarian union ruled by
| the rich for the rich.
| toyg wrote:
| _> > >A lot of those "western European" products are
| actually manufactured in Eastern Europe by cheap Eastern
| European labor._
|
| _> No._
|
| Alright, I must have dreamed all that juicy
| delocalization that basically makes for a whole branch of
| academic studies nowadays...
|
| _> How dares the est stand up for themselves_
|
| Nobody denies anything to anyone, but western audiences
| are a bit tired of the lack of grace and gratefulness
| exhibited by areas that continue (and intend to continue)
| to be massive recipients of Union funds.
|
| _> when some countries are constantly being milked_
|
| Except nobody is being "milked" - every country in the
| Union experiences tradeoffs. France, Italy, and Spain
| benefit from financial stability but suffer from job
| losses; Germany benefits from economic growth while
| subsidizing the rest of the continent; and Eastern
| countries benefit from subsidies and job creation while
| struggling to build national champions. It's a give-and-
| take for everyone, which is why this continuous self-
| victimization exhibited by certain audiences is
| incredibly tiresome.
| gumballindie wrote:
| I find it incredibly amusing when someone from a country
| that left the eu because of the burocratic burden and
| unfair policies complains about people complaining about
| similar issues. Whats even more amusing is when said
| country is on a fast track to becoming irrelevant.
|
| Pretty sure the eu is making them payments as a means to
| compensate for the job losses you mentioned that it
| created and for the trade tariffs they no longer charge
| when importing them sweet, subsidised, german cars.
| toyg wrote:
| I'm Italian and living in UK (for my sins), so I think I
| can see more than one facet of the argument.
|
| _> Pretty sure the eu is making them payments as a means
| to compensate for the job losses_
|
| How do these lies are even invented...?
|
| Development payments are a mean to bring countries up to
| scratch. They are allocated with formulas that look at
| development potential per capita, which is why even
| struggling areas inside western countries (from Wales to
| Calabria to Northern Spain to Greece) receive them. It
| just so happens that Eastern countries receive
| disproportionate amounts _because of the state they found
| themselves in after the end of the Soviet Bloc_.
|
| The European Community was built on the principle of
| _solidarity_ , and those payments are one massive
| expression of such solidarity. Sadly, the largest
| recipients seem to avoid expressing any solidarity back
| in other areas.
| gumballindie wrote:
| > I'm Italian and living in UK (for my sins), so I think
| I can see more than one facet of the argument.
|
| The giveaway was commenting about gratefulness, lies and
| audiences, when my comment is strictly about policy and
| imbalance and what i suspect the reason may be within the
| EU. Somehow you dragged the whole west in a debate about
| policy that benefits west europe more than east and south
| europe.
|
| The european community wasn't built out of solidarity, it
| was built as a mechanism to ensure we don't resort to
| barbarism again, as we did our entire history.
|
| The armed conflicts of last century are the economic wars
| of today, at least within the eu.
|
| Talking about "solidarity" and "recipients" is, i am
| sorry, amusing. I cant entertain this thought path any
| further simply because this is not a pub and we are not
| drunks.
| toyg wrote:
| _> The european community wasn 't built out of
| solidarity, it was built as a mechanism to ensure we
| don't resort to barbarism again_
|
| You should read the Treaty of Rome before you try to act
| all mighty about stuff you clearly don't fully
| understand. The word solidarity is in the founding
| principles, and it actually comes even before "peace".
| The Treaty established the European Social Fund as well
| as the investment bank. Economic solidarity has always
| been the key policy to achieve progress in other areas.
| Most of the money the EU handles today, like yesterday,
| is used towards enacting that.
|
| Everything else, i am sorry, is hot air (and yes, lies).
| gumballindie wrote:
| This is a projection.
|
| Claiming solidarity is in the "treaties" yet your
| reaction to east europe wanting change in policy is
| "leave if you don't like it". Such is the eu.
| toyg wrote:
| Let me understand this: the founding treaties of the
| community were written in my language, by my elected
| politicians, and signed in my capital city, but you think
| you know the principles they expose better than me...?
|
| Economic solidarity is the lynchpin of the EU; it
| benefited Italy or Spain before, it's benefiting Eastern
| Europe now. Any country who wants to alter the current
| setup, will have to renounce this state of things.
| Surprise surprise, when push comes to shove, nobody wants
| to - every time funding is threatened, Eastern
| representatives fall in line.
|
| It has become clear, even in this thread, that certain
| countries probably never shared the founding principles
| of the community, and bringing them in as quickly as it
| was done might have been premature. For that reason, a
| shrinkage around a more ideologically cohesive core
| becomes more and more attractive with time.
| gumballindie wrote:
| > Let me understand this: the founding treaties of the
| community were written in my language, by my elected
| politicians, and signed in my capital city, but you think
| you know the principles they expose better than me...?
|
| That is correct.
|
| > Economic solidarity is the lynchpin of the EU; it
| benefited Italy or Spain before, it's benefiting Eastern
| Europe now.
|
| In theory, but in practice that's not accurate. Modern
| day EU is far more corrupt and inefficient than when
| Spain joined.
|
| > Surprise surprise, when push comes to shove, nobody
| wants to - every time funding is threatened, Eastern
| representatives fall in line.
|
| A little bit similar to Italy falling in line around
| 2010, I believe, corruption, financial crime, fiscal
| irresponsibility etc where mentioned. I remember around
| the time there were frequent calls for PIGS to leave the
| EU since, unlike east europe, those countries nearly
| collapsed the project and the euro zone.
|
| > For that reason, a shrinkage around a more
| ideologically cohesive core becomes more and more
| attractive with time.
|
| A review of the current state of affairs is in order, but
| I doubt Italy will have much to say in any of this.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> I'm Italian and living in UK (for my sins), so I think
| I can see more than one facet of the argument._
|
| Great then, let's talk about the south of Italy and it's
| development. Everyone from the south of Italy I met in
| Europe said they'd rather be expats in EU than in the
| North of Italy thanks to they way the north treat them.
| That's how Eastern Europeans feel in the EU sometimes.
| People don't like to be treated as second class citizens.
|
| _> It just so happens that Eastern countries receive
| disproportionate amounts because of the state they found
| themselves in after the end of the Soviet Bloc._
|
| Kind of like the solidarity of the post-WW2 Marshall plan
| Italy received after siding with the Nazis? Is it equally
| disproportionate, more, or less?
|
| _> Sadly, the largest recipients seem to avoid
| expressing any solidarity back in other areas._
|
| What kind of solidarity are you thinking of receiving?
| Are the the minimum wage slaves from Eastern Europe
| working in Italian and German nursing homes and
| agriculture fields working in conditions below legal
| norms for wages below the minimum in order to keep the
| nursing system and cheap supermarket prices afloat,
| enough to balance the books?
| toyg wrote:
| _> People don 't like to be treated as second class
| citizens._
|
| Don't come to me, an European in Brexit Britain, hailing
| from a country with one of the largest and most-enduring
| economic diasporas in the world, to talk about the
| condition of migrants or second-class "feelings".
|
| The stuff you mention is largely bullshit and jokes.
| There has been no discrimination of Southern Italians
| since the late '80s, when African migrants became the
| (easier) target for that sort of treatment. Whereas I'm
| now on a fucking register and I can lose all my rights
| with the stroke of a pen by some populist asshole. I
| swear, EU27 folks don't know how good they have it.
|
| _> Is it equally disproportionate, more, or less?_
|
| The Marshall Plan lasted 3 years, Italy got around a
| billion USD. Over 20 years, Eastern Europe likely got
| several multiples of that - Poland alone received 11bn
| _per year_ not long ago, so even adjusting for inflation
| the Eastern bloc is probably way ahead by now.
|
| _> What kind of solidarity are you thinking of
| receiving?_
|
| Help with migratory flows and refugees resettlement, to
| balance demographic pressures. Help with stemming tax
| evasion (I'm looking at you, Slovenia). Help that costs
| little and would benefit everyone in the long run.
| eropple wrote:
| _> I find it incredibly amusing when someone from a
| country that left the eu because of the burocratic burden
| and unfair policies complains about people complaining
| about similar issues. Whats even more amusing is when
| said country is on a fast track to becoming irrelevant._
|
| This doesn't follow at all unless you somehow are able to
| tell that the poster to whom you reply didn't vote
| Remain. "Your fellow citizens bought into lies splattered
| on the side of a bus, shut up" is not the dunk you think
| it is.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> A lot of those "western European" products are
| actually manufactured in Eastern Europe by cheap Eastern
| European labor._
|
| Please name me 3 foodstuffs you have in your kitchen made
| in some Eastern EU country.
|
| _> You don't have brands but have jobs, often displaced
| from Western countries._
|
| Goods made in Eastern EU didn't displace jobs from the
| West. French and German unemployment were record lows.
| Southern EU had big unemployment but that was due to
| their own economic issues, no factories from Greece or
| Spain moved to Eastern Europe.
|
| _> they were meant to provide new markets and new labor
| for (largely German) established companies. In exchange,
| they got loads of money to raise their infrastructural
| standards and overall quality of life._
|
| In exchange they also had to suffer a huge increase in
| cost of living, food and energy prices to the point we're
| paying German prices at Eastern EU wages. Most of our
| energy companies are German or French owned, so the
| profits from the increase prices we paid went to them. So
| are our banks. The profits made by western banks also far
| outpace the ones made in their home countries since they
| offer higher interest rates and charge higher fees than
| what they do back home to their own countrymen. So are
| our oil and gas companies, all owned by western
| enterprises and profits go there.
|
| Yeah, we're getting hundreds of millions from the EU and
| sending back billions in corporate profits. Heck of a
| deal. From some angles it looks more like economic
| colonialism.
| toyg wrote:
| _> Please name me 3 foodstuffs you have in your kitchen
| made in some Eastern EU country._
|
| How is it my fault that your stuff tastes bad? ;)
|
| _> no factories from Greece or Spain moved to Eastern
| Europe._
|
| That's because they largely didn't exist in the first
| place; whereas they definitely did from Italy, which you
| carefully avoided mentioning, or the UK.
|
| _> In exchange they also had to suffer a huge increase
| in cost of living, food and energy prices_
|
| That's just capitalism in action, and it's the same for
| pretty much anyone on the continent at the moment. (oh,
| actually, it's worse here in UK, with sustained double-
| digit inflation, eye-watering energy prices that nobody
| else pays in Europe, and a house market used as reserve
| currency by rich foreigners).
| gumballindie wrote:
| > How is it my fault that your stuff tastes bad? ;)
|
| Damn, that's some high quality trolling right there.
| [deleted]
| gumballindie wrote:
| A rather unsophisticated opinion.
| toyg wrote:
| Followed by an even less sophisticated one.
| snapcaster wrote:
| i don't know much about Europe, would you mind adding
| some sophistication to above comment?
| gumballindie wrote:
| It has been proven that west european products made by
| west european companies sold in east europe are of low
| quality and sometimes even more expensive:
|
| https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2021/dual-quality-
| food-...
|
| Claims east europeans "displaced jobs" from west europe
| yet east europeans have been forced to migrate to western
| europe due to a lack of jobs. How have jobs been moved to
| east europe when people leave precisely because there are
| no jobs?
|
| They also claim that east europe was meant to provide
| "cheap labour" for richer nations in the eu - basically
| admitting the plan has always been to keep those people
| poor so they can work in factories. Somehow they should
| be thankful for that.
|
| The list continues and is a good indication of the
| underlying issues that plague european "solidarity".
|
| What was initially sold as a continuation of the marshal
| plan has taken a very dark european shape where if you
| dont like it you are told to get out.
| toyg wrote:
| Nobody was forced to do anything; migration started
| almost immediately after 1989-90, simply because the
| eastern economic and social landscape was depleted after
| the failures of the '80s. Delocalization took a bit
| longer simply because it required institutional
| stability, which some countries achieved faster than
| others. Volkswagen were already making parts in Chzechia
| in the mid-90s, do you think they were making twice the
| parts they needed...?
|
| _> basically admitting the plan has always been to keep
| those people poor_
|
| That's not what delocalization does; in the long run it
| inevitably leads to wage growth in target countries - it
| happened even in China. The "plan", or rather intuition
| of some political players of the time, was simply to
| exploit lower salaries as long as it was possible,
| knowing full well that it wouldn't be forever.
|
| _> What was initially sold as a continuation of the
| marshal plan has taken a very dark european shape._
|
| As I said, nobody is forced to stay in. If those
| countries stay in, it's because they know which side
| their bread is buttered.
| gumballindie wrote:
| It is a sad state of affairs when italians talk about
| obedience in exchange for bread and butter. Perhaps a
| skill gained after causing the largest financial disaster
| in eu's history, together with other south european
| countries.
|
| Instead east europe demands a level playing field so it
| doesnt have to rely on eu funding, partly needed due to
| misguided policies.
|
| If Italy doesnt like this then it can leave. East europe
| is increasingly more relevant.
| swexbe wrote:
| "The evil westerners are keeping us poor and our people
| are emigrating"
|
| vs
|
| "East europe is increasingly more relevant"
|
| You appear to have some cognitive dissonance.
| gumballindie wrote:
| > The evil westerners
|
| Never said that.
| toyg wrote:
| _> italians talk about obedience in exchange for bread
| and butter_
|
| I've never used that word, that's your own insecurities
| talking. What people want is not obedience, is respect:
| respect for the founding principles of the community they
| joined, and respect for the solidarity that the founders
| extend _every day_ to them.
|
| Instead, certain elements in Eastern Europe demand more
| and more, without ever giving anything back.
|
| _> If Italy doesnt like this then it can leave._
|
| Sure, but why should we leave a house _we_ built, that we
| still fundamentally believe in, and that we know we
| benefit from in various ways...? Obviously we won 't.
| It's much more likely that we will simply continue to
| work to improve the house rules.
|
| _> East europe is increasingly more relevant. _
|
| Lol. I'm not sure you noticed, but Visegrad is dead. In
| EU institutions, the great killer is isolation. The more
| you beat your chest, the less you will get.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Counterfeits are their own issue. In short: more
| developed countries, better laws and their enforcement,
| more risky to manufacture counterfeit goods.
|
| As for low-quality products from China - until recently,
| Chinese vendors didn't even sell directly to customers in
| Europe. Most of the garbage products were, and still are,
| _western products_ , which are only _made_ in China,
| because... everything is made in China. It 's the world's
| 3D printer. Chinese manufacturers can make goods to
| arbitrarily high or low quality standards - it's up to
| the company that orders production to choose how much
| quality they want to pay for.
|
| That is, if you see a shitty product made in China for a
| western company, don't blame China - it's the western
| company that chose to request production of low-quality
| garbage.
| gumballindie wrote:
| You are right, I shouldn't have made it sound as if I am
| blaming china. The issue lies entirely with those
| ordering and selling low quality products made there. But
| that doesn't imply china is only making low quality
| products or indeed that it's them pushing their products
| to europe.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| FWIW, Chinese vendors absolutely _are_ responsible for
| the absurd amount of garbage they put up for sale on
| Aliexpress (if you order directly, there aren 't even
| dropshippers involved). But that's a relatively recent
| development.
| briantakita wrote:
| > A lot of companies in Eastern Europe were obliterated
| when joining the EU and our local market was flooded with
| goods made in the west since the local ones weren't "up
| to standard" anymore. Even today we still have a huge
| trade deficit with the west as we import far more than we
| export.
|
| This is the definition of colonialism. Expect the deficit
| to continue as your state is a colony.
|
| I grew up on Maui. The pineapple & sugar cane were farmed
| there with inexpensive labor. The raw materials were
| lightly processed & shipped to the mainland to be
| manufactured. The sugar & to a lesser extent canned
| pineapple (it was easy to get fresh pineapple) were then
| sold at retail to the residents of Maui. HC&S (the sugar
| company) controlled the agricultural fresh water, so no
| agricultural competition could arise.
|
| The local residents were not happy & conducted social,
| religious, & political action which included adhering to
| indigenous cultural practices to gain some concessions.
|
| If you study the history of Hawaii & how its monarchy was
| overthrown in a coup by US business interests with the
| help of the US military (to protect the interests of US
| citizens of course) & the events since, you will have a
| set of tools to keep what is rightfully yours. Of course
| Hawaii is now a US State with a large military base &
| munitions. Aquifers are polluted by jet fuel from the US
| Navy which it still has not taken appropriate action for.
| The struggle continues...
| [deleted]
| dingledork69 wrote:
| Wait, so you're blaming the EU for giving you access to a
| free market after literally begging to join?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Wait, so you're blaming the EU for giving you access
| to a free market after literally begging to join?_
|
| Because we learned later that the "free market" might be
| free as in freedom, but not free as in beer, it's
| actually "pay to win".
|
| It's a palce that flavors the established players with
| capital (the rich countries with big conglomerates) to
| easily buy whatever they want from the places without
| capital (the poorer countries), while having enough
| expensive moats that price out the poorer countries from
| doing the same in the richer ones. Case in point: the
| common energy market.
|
| The "free market" doesn't benefit the consumers in the
| poorer countries in the sectors of essentials stuff
| needed for living: healthcare, food, energy, housing.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Well gp is referring to the us and maui.
|
| But to your point specifically not being a member of the
| eu is equal to being embargoed or sanctioned if you are a
| european country. It covers so much of the continent that
| it should be a right not a privilege. Either it gets
| dismantled or is free and equal for all.
| acadapter wrote:
| It's a rigged market with a free market narrative
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Not sure it is so cut and dry. Here are 8 different USB-C
| types:
|
| 1. USB 2.0 rated at 3A 2. USB 2.0 rated at 5A 3. USB 3.2
| Gen 1 rated at 3A 4. USB 3.2 Gen 1 rated at 5A 5. USB 3.2
| Gen 2 rated at 3A 6. USB 3.2 Gen 2 rated at 5A 7. USB4 Gen
| 3 rated at 3A 8. USB4 Gen 3 rated at 5A
|
| What percentage of customers will be impacted when they
| aren't using a compatible cable that looks like it should
| work? Also the whole master/slave hardware confusion might
| be a step back:
| https://superuser.com/questions/1140136/how-does-usb-c-
| affec...
| rektide wrote:
| Charging cables made it complex, but those aside everyone
| else gets 5Gbps and 3A, which is an incredibly solid
| baseline.
|
| People love freaking out about the profusion of USB specs
| available, but the overall experience is magically great.
| Just stellar.
|
| Usb has recently gotten a bit better about their new on-
| cable markings to make things clearer. But overall the
| baseline is so good.
| megous wrote:
| Maybe 2 people who expect to get Alt-DP working with USB
| 2.0 only cable. For others, things will just work, except
| not at the max capacity/performance.
| oefrha wrote:
| > except not at the max capacity/performance
|
| That except is doing a lot of work. Picking up a USB-C
| cable only to find out it charges slower than the device
| burns battery, or only capable of transferring data at
| sub USB 2.0 speed when I need to transfer a lot of data
| are both real world scenarios I have encountered multiple
| times. Even got a charging cable for >400GB data transfer
| at an Apple Store Genius Bar once.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| > Picking up a USB-C cable only to find out it charges
| slower than the device burns battery
|
| You have to try hard for that, as _any_ compliant cable
| is able to pass 60W, which is what I can comfortably
| charge my laptop with. You only need e-markers for going
| higher than that, which is perfectly reasonable as that
| 's plenty of power already.
|
| Cables with no CC lines cannot be called "USB-C cables".
| They're not complaint at all. They're just broken, and
| it's no surprise that broken hardware fails to work as
| expected.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| The EU can't regulate that. The device and the chargers
| already negociate the charging standard to the lowest and
| safest common denominator supported by both devices and
| the cable connecting them.
|
| There are several universal chargers you can buy that
| support all standards under the sun from all
| manufacturers.
|
| That's a non issue outside of HN mind games people here
| like to play to draw their own straw men.
| JacobiX wrote:
| Personally, I would find it easier to be less cynical if
| the European Union's charging standard extended to include
| everyday items such as my German Braun shaver. As it
| currently stands, the standard appears to be limited to the
| likes of handheld mobile devices, tablets, digital cameras,
| and similar technologies produced mainly by non EU
| corporations.
| dingledork69 wrote:
| Right, devices that require expensive chargers
| sillyfluke wrote:
| one of my best purchases, great device. but those fucking
| chargers man. I bought several generations, and I've
| never noticed the battery the degrading at all really,
| which is more than I can say for the other shavers that
| became useless when the batteries quickly degraded to the
| point where you couldn't use it without a cord.
|
| The braun shavers are also the fastest charging
| electronic devices I own. So what's the problem? Like
| apple, the charger may not be compatible with the older
| generation. So how about they force companies to bundle
| an adaptor that can work with the older generations. Or
| better yet, release an adaptor that lets me charge my
| phone with my shaver charger:)
| gumballindie wrote:
| They have a net benefit on the lives of citizens that live
| in countries that make the rules.
|
| There isn't one specific example, it's the sheer amount,
| and in some cases the stupidity, that are problematic.
|
| Sure we all want to live in a utopia but at the moment that
| utopia is causing mass displacement of economic refugees
| from east and south europe to nw europe and a constant
| reliance on eu funding, while the industrial base of those
| parts of europe has to constantly adapt to new legislation
| made in countries that already meet the requirements. And
| this constant game of catching up is in my view intentional
| protectionism.
| rektide wrote:
| I read this struggle as less about consumer protection &
| more about compliance. Do you have iso x y and z? Are you
| doc whatever? Do you meet balh blah blah? Governments end
| up shopping for contracts & products at a very small number
| of large shops.
| blululu wrote:
| Did it help Apple's customers? I would generally bet that a
| company that is engaged in a highly competitive market
| would have a better gasp of what their customers would like
| than a regulatory body composed of people who may or may
| not have any relevant experience. You don't design a custom
| cable standard without a clear need. A thinner, more
| durable cable manufactured to a certain spec has a number
| of benefits for industrial design and durability that
| should not be overlooked.
|
| But also establishing new standards is also the standard
| playbook for European industry. There are plenty of
| examples that are a mere google search away. Two that I
| find especially annoying are the decision to switch to 50hz
| AC power instead of using the original 60hz and the
| decision to create a broadcast TV encoding.
| dingledork69 wrote:
| Yes, it did.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Would it have helped consumers when the EU was trying to
| force the micro USB standard which was worse than Lightning
| in every way?
|
| What happens when a company wants to come up with a better
| charging method then USB C?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What happens when a company wants to come up with a
| better charging method then USB C?_
|
| Bottom line: it won't happen in Europe.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Neither will any AI innovations if another proposed
| regulation comes into affect. AI based companies just
| won't do business in the EU.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _AI based companies just won't do business in the EU_
|
| They probably will. It's a huge and lucrative economic
| bloc. But they won't be started there, or if they are,
| will be stunted by the fixed costs of compliance. For all
| the problems with our political process, America is good
| about exempting start-ups and small businesses from
| certain regulation.
| davedx wrote:
| OpenAI: "Hold my coat" _takes seat in meeting room with
| Congress to help them draft some handy new laws_
| josefx wrote:
| > which was worse than Lightning in every way?
|
| You mean the proprietary connector that Apple would
| rather have die than turn into a free standard? Which it
| had over a decade to accomplish between the EU announcing
| its intention to enforce a standard and actually writing
| the law.
|
| > What happens when a company wants to come up with a
| better charging method then USB C?
|
| There is a renewal period of five years for the
| connection standard of choice. Why does this question get
| repeated every time USB comes up?
| scarface74 wrote:
| You do know that Apple was a major contributor to the USB
| C standard?
|
| Would other companies really use Lightning even if it
| were a standard? Did PC manufacturers embrace FireWire
| even though it was better? Sony did and Dell did on their
| high end computers.
| josefx wrote:
| > Did PC manufacturers embrace FireWire even though it
| was better?
|
| For a time they seemed to, I had FireWire ports even on
| computers at the lower end of the price range. What I
| didn't have where FireWire based gadgets and going by
| Wikipedia that isn't surprising. FireWire style peer
| networking seems to force a lot of complexity onto
| peripherals, with every device being equal. USB on the
| other hand pushed most of the complexity to the host,
| making peripherals cheap and easy to implement. Given
| that I am not surprised that USB pushed firewire out,
| especially when after it came out that most FireWire
| implementations had significant security flaws.
| Rediscover wrote:
| FireWire on ThinkPads, too... Even one of my low-end TPs
| (but still a real one, my R61i) has IEEE-1394 (ie,
| FireWire).
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Yeah it's funny how many HNers come out of the woodworks
| to defend their favorite corporation's inferior
| proprietary charging standard that hasn't seen mass
| adoption beyond one single company and even that moved
| away from it on some of its higher end products.
|
| This is why we can't have nice things.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| What higher end products did Apple move away from it on?
| Macs never had proprietary connectors again to my
| knowledge once they dropped FireWire (which technically
| was an open standard iirc). Apple dropped lightning from
| iPads but I think that has less to do with moving away
| and more that iPad volume is relatively small, MFI is not
| as important in its product segment, it requires high
| charging rates that lightning probably can't support,
| iPad/Mac convergence is a thing and they want to make the
| charging story between those two compelling (eg
| connecting your iPhone to your iPad to charge). I
| seriously doubt Apple dropped iPad because it wants to
| move away from lightning.
|
| Also, Apple has easily shipped many billions of units
| with lightning connectors and dominates the profit margin
| of selling a smart phone. I think that qualifies as "mass
| adoption" regardless and they very intentionally control
| the lightning standard. I'm sure there's many competitors
| who would haven chosen it over usbc before it became so
| ubiquitous if they could.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Macs never had proprietary connectors again to my
| knowledge once they dropped FireWire (which technically
| was an open standard iirc)._
|
| More than "technically."
|
| Lots of devices had FireWire connections. In addition to
| my PowerBook, my Comcast cable box, my external archive
| drives from multiple brands, and my Sony camera had
| FireWire connectors. Many high-end televisions had them,
| too.
|
| The notion that FireWire was an Apple-only thing is
| little more than a HN cliche.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I had both a Sony desktop and a high end Dell in 2011
| that had FireWire
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| FireWire (aka IEEE-1394) was an open standard but
| implementors were charged substantial per-unit patent
| royalties by MPEG-LA.
|
| This likely a major reason why it lost out to the
| royalty-free USB, despite technical advantages.
| scarface74 wrote:
| $1 per port was not "substantial",
|
| https://www.cnet.com/culture/apple-licensing-firewire-
| for-a-...
| Xorakios wrote:
| Firewire drives in 2002 were a minimum of $400 and
| generally closer to $1000 for 10GB range.
|
| Licensing fees were $1 for historical legal reasons per
| SKU, for the first unit sold, and then 14 cents for each
| subsequent unit.
|
| Still stupid, but nothing like what a lot of this thread
| is condemning.
|
| .07 percent is not remotely close to "several" percent
|
| We old people remember $5000 for first generation IBM PC.
|
| So get off my lawn ;)
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Can you source the 14 cents per subsequent unit? Every
| article I found has Apple charging $1 / port (e.g. [1]).
| There was also apparently a 50k upfront fee to get the
| technical documentation. Also, since Apple was the
| primary PC with a Firewire interface (modulo Sony using
| it in their cameras & thus putting it in their own
| laptops), the overall market to cell Firewire-enabled
| accessories was quite small, which artificially inflated
| the price. If this was a more common standard, you'd see
| the licensing fee becoming a larger and larger problem
| and Apple was small enough then that vendors just avoided
| getting fully locked into Apple's ecosystem (whereas with
| iPhone the market is just too compelling to avoid this
| for most players).
|
| [1] https://www.cnet.com/culture/apple-licensing-
| firewire-for-a-...
| foobiekr wrote:
| $1 cogs per port is indeed substantial.
| scarface74 wrote:
| And this is why people who care enough to afford higher
| end products shouldn't be burden by commodity product
| vendors like PC makers and Android manufacturers.
|
| FireWire was better. Apple and high end PCs had them. If
| Apple created a better connector than USB C that cost
| more to include, it would never be accepted by Android
| manufacturers who want to sell shitty $60 phones.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Apple and high end PCs had them._
|
| Even Apple's consumer-grade basic computers had them. I
| was introduced to FireWire when my wife bought a MacBook
| in 2006.
| scarface74 wrote:
| But even those cost more than cheap PCs at the time.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| That's pretty big, especially if you're selling an
| external hard drive with two FireWire ports (for daisy
| chaining). I don't recall what FireWire drive prices were
| ~15 years ago, but that could easily be several percent
| of the final retail price.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _I don 't recall what FireWire drive prices were ~15
| years ago, but that could easily be several percent of
| the final retail price._
|
| $2 for two ports would have been a tiny percent of the
| final retail price 15 years ago.
|
| Today we're used to portable 4GB drives for $99. But back
| then, drives were more expensive.
|
| According to the Wayback Machine+, a 1TB FireWire drive
| was almost $400. So those two ports would have been 1/2%
| of the retail price.
|
| + https://web.archive.org/web/20080128203022/http://www.l
| acie....
| vlovich123 wrote:
| How familiar are you with how manufacturing works? A BOM
| (bill of materials)/COG (cost of goods) cost !== the
| retail price. You have things like NRE costs (i.e. what
| it costs to pay people to design and bring the thing to
| mass production, machines you have to buy/manufacture to
| support your assembly lines, marketing, legal, etc etc)
| and profit margins to factor in. Apple's 20-30% is rare
| and PC margins are closer to 2-5% (often even negative
| for Android phone manufacturers as they try to recoup
| that through revenue sharing on the software side with
| Google).
|
| Basically, BOM/COG is things you pay for that you pass on
| directly to the consumer. However, the retail price has
| to cover a bunch more than that so you can't compare the
| two directly. A good rule of thumb is ~2-20x markup
| depending on the profit margin you are targeting.
|
| A $2 licensing fee in the BOM is thus probably closer to
| ~$14-40 retail. Considering how thin profit margins are,
| 3% of retail going to nothing but marketing is not
| nothing especially considering that Apple doesn't have to
| pay this fee and also getting a cut of every product you
| sell to boot. Think about it this way - frequently
| towards the end of the development cycle as you're
| heading towards mass manufacturing, companies will look
| to shave tens of dollars and be trying to find 10-20c
| here & there to add up to that. $3 is massive.
|
| You see similar dynamics with MFI. It requires a special
| chip (space within the product, battery costs) and
| licensing fees (Apple gets a cut of every sale you make
| making your competitor product more expensive or less
| profitable). It's why none of the major tech companies
| have MFI in their products AFAIK. It cripples any
| competitor product you try to make (not to mention that
| you're further at Apple's whims around licensing
| agreements changing if you build your product around
| MFI).
| scarface74 wrote:
| And why should people who choose to be in an ecosystem
| that doesn't suffer from those market conditions be
| forced to use a substandard component?
|
| I'm not saying that USB C is inferior. But if Apple did
| want to come up with a better port it couldn't.
|
| This goes back to when Apple was moving to Lightning, the
| EU wanted to mandate micro USB.
| scarface74 wrote:
| The first link I could find for contemporary prices was
| this one from 2012 - in pounds.
|
| https://www.theregister.com/Print/2012/03/14/ten_firewire
| _ha...
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> The notion that FireWire was an Apple-only thing is
| little more than a HN cliche._
|
| Nobody on this thread claimed this, so I don't know why
| you have to make up your own straw man and start a fame
| war. Famebait is against HN rules.
| dingledork69 wrote:
| Because apple stans want to make it clear they drank the
| koolaid. They wasted so much money it's very important
| for them to feel like it was the right choice.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > subpar chinese products are OK
|
| Subpar Chinese products are not _officially_ OK, they 're
| just not really stopping individual packages from AliExpress.
| They generally aren't being resold through EU retailers.
|
| For me, the lack of any de-minimis rules in the requirements
| is the killer. EU law does not recognize the concept of a
| "small business". It might be both viable and a good idea for
| extra safety checks for something where a million units are
| being sold, but it isn't for a few dozen.
| megous wrote:
| A lot of such products are resold on local "auction" sites.
| Not sure if that's a loophole or not.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Yeah, it's technically illegal to import and sell new
| non-CE marked goods into the EU on ebay, but it's
| basically impossible to enforce. You see a handful of
| prosecutions a year and only for genuinely dangerous
| products (flammable e-scooters, illegal vapes, etc)
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Customs in the EU have massively cracked down on imports
| from China in the last couple of years, with new
| regulations regarding import charges etc.
|
| Every single package I've ordered since then across four
| different EU countries and multiple Chinese suppliers has
| resulted in it being held until a fee was paid.
|
| Previously, stuff below a certain value was "free".
| red_trumpet wrote:
| You have to pay an import tax. That has nothing to do
| with standards compliance of the products.
| brutusborn wrote:
| The same thing happens in Australia, and there is an exclusive
| licensing deal with a foreign company to sell them. I wouldn't
| mind if they did research or something, but Australian
| volunteers write the standards, so the only costs to the
| publisher are web infrastructure.
| rmm wrote:
| This only recently changed. Standards Australia had to sue
| though (or something) you can buy direct from them now. They
| also have subscriptions which are OK
| rmm wrote:
| It's the same bs everywhere. Here in Australia same deal.
|
| It's even more dodgy. Saiglobal had something of a contract in
| perpetuity to sell standards that were created by standards
| Australia. Someone thought that was a good deal back when. They
| recently sued to get out of it and now can sell directly and
| have a pretty affordable subscription model. But even then it's
| stupid. The standards themselves are developed by volunteer
| committees mostly, and standards Australia is sitting on a
| massive cash fund.
|
| We recently had to design some coupling plates for a job and
| needed to check allowable clearances that were specified in a
| standard. Problem is the bloody standard has 20 parts to it,
| each cost $150 each. I don't even know which part I need!
|
| Anyway makes me angry thinking about.
|
| TLDR: standards should be free
| passwordoops wrote:
| But then how would the ISO keep their doors open? Surely you're
| not implying that these poor organizations are profiteering,
| nay, _rent-seeking_ in some way?
|
| (*Being sarcastic BTW. There's nothing more infuriating to me
| than the twin Industrial Complexes that have developed around
| Compliance and Publishing)
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Well they get the government subsides, the membership fees,
| and a huge lot of small task-oriented fees.
|
| AFAIK, each one of those is designed to be enough to cover
| for all their real expenses.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > Yet they're behind a really expensive pay-wall. If you buy
| the standard from ISO it's often EUR150
|
| Really, I'm surprised there's anyone left who doesn't know
| about EVS (the Estonian Centre for Standards and
| Accreditation)[1]
|
| They have a nice English website, and you don't have to have
| any ties whatsoever to Eestonia, or Europe.
|
| The customer service people speak perfect English too if you
| have any questions.
|
| Just make sure you're looking at the price for the EN version
| and not the ISO version.
|
| EN just means the regionally adopted version of the standard.
| For all intents and purposes EN and ISO are basically
| identical.
|
| [1] https://www.evs.ee/en/
| leoedin wrote:
| There's also the Latvian equivalent - https://www.lvs.lv/en
| AndyMcConachie wrote:
| I just looked at this site and you have to pay if you want
| access. They're not free from this website either. I was
| looking at ISO-3166 and the different standards documents
| cost from ~$22 to ~$175.
| traceroute66 wrote:
| > I just looked at this site and you have to pay if you
| want access.
|
| When did I say it was free ?
|
| I was replying to the OP who was complaining about paying
| 150. I pointed out that most people go to EVS these days
| where they can get it for a fraction of the cost.
|
| Frankly I'm sick and tired of the modern freetard mentality
| where people feel they are somehow entitled to the work of
| others free of charge.
|
| Whilst yes I agree the source 150 cost is high, the
| fractional cost available via EVS is not. And if your job
| is dependent on formal standards compliance, then its
| merely a cost of doing business no different to an internet
| connection and should be accounted for accordingly.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| I've looked for ISO 10218, 12100, 13849, and IEC 60204, and
| they're $29.76 to $36.23; $138 for the set. That's a lot
| better than $183, $207, $230, and $575 that the original
| publishers want, almost $1200 for the set. The former is
| likely in the discretionary shop tools budget for most
| clients, especially if you spread it out over four pay
| periods, but $1200 would trigger lots of restrictions. But
| you're right, it's still not free.
|
| These are documents that should be on the laptops of every
| shift lead, maintenance tech, mechanical designer,
| manufacturing engineer, robot programmer, and controls
| programmer at industrial plants worldwide. These documents
| being free would not just make websites easier to use,
| they'd make human beings safer and reduce the number of
| industrial accidents that occur. And yet in the hundreds of
| facilities I've been in and hundreds of customers and
| vendors I've worked with, I can count on one hand the
| number of people who had a copy of even one of these
| documents. The vast majority, in practice, makes do with
| the regurgitated Powerpoints from various "safety training"
| presentations that have screenshots of a few tables and
| critical language.
|
| There's an enormous river of prosperity flowing through
| society. Everyone involved just wants to dip out or siphon
| off a little bit, what they imagine to be their fair share,
| or what they think they can convince people ought to be
| their fair share, and unfortunately, that includes people
| like the standards bodies. If they published their
| standards more freely, the total volume of that river would
| grow enormously, but they would get less of it, so they
| selfishly don't do that.
| delfinom wrote:
| In the US, it's been ruled many times that if the government
| mandates a standard, then it must be publicly available for
| free to be enforceable.
|
| Which is why, when the NFPA (private org) fire code is
| mandated, you can use a really shitty web based viewer to view
| it for free, or pay the normal $200 for a hard copy or pdf. All
| stemming from a lawsuit.
|
| It's interesting the EU isn't the same
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| This is substantially less true in practice than you'd think.
| I'm in automotive, so let's take ISO-26262, one of the main
| standards used to design your vehicle. The contents of that
| are encoded in the NHTSA validation tests, basic compliance
| procedures, and all the certification paperwork, but the
| standard itself is "voluntary" and hence non-free. It's a
| massive standard with a dozen different parts that have to be
| purchased separately for a couple hundred each.
|
| Since group licensing also tends to charge by # of people
| with access, beancounters naturally silo access to this
| critical safety standard, with many of the thousands of
| engineers who work on any particular vehicle designing to a
| standard they've never read for themselves.
|
| Standards should simply be freely available. It takes time
| and effort to write them, but the consequences of limited
| access are borne by society.
| raverbashing wrote:
| > Standards should be free and open, or have no legal weight.
|
| Yes. And this discussion is much older than it seems. Way older
| davedx wrote:
| Merchant guilds? :)
| alwayslikethis wrote:
| Some state laws in the US I believe are copyrighted and costs
| money to obtain.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| You're probably referencing the Georgia situation,[0] and
| it's complicated. The actual _text_ of the laws are public,
| but there exists a (previously; see below) copyrighted
| _annotated_ version published by a private company and
| "merged" into the "master" law. Courts would reference this
| annotated version, but because it was copyrighted, one could
| not republish it in its entirety, only in ways that followed
| fair use.
|
| On the surface, the concept of copyrighted laws sounds
| ridiculous. After all, works of the government are not
| copyrightable, so why should the law be? However, Georgia's
| idea was essentially: because it was done by a private
| company, the copyright was enforceable.
|
| In 2013, Public.Resource.Org challenged this concept by
| publishing the text in its entirety, and was subsequently
| sued by Georgia in 2015. The Northern District of Georgia
| ruled in favor of Georgia in 2017. After an appeal to the
| 11th Circuit, in 2018, it was overturned in favor of
| Public.Resource.Org. In 2020,[1] the Supreme Court sided with
| the 11th Circuit, ending the debacle. The ruling held that
| "works that lack the force of law, such as the annotations in
| the Official Code of Georgia Annotated" are uncopyrightable.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Code_of_Georgia_A
| nnot...
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_v._Public.Resource
| .Org....
| robertlagrant wrote:
| "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse" is already bad
| enough. "Ignorance of the stuff we wrote down near the law
| that we'll basically treat as the golden interpretation of
| the law and judge you on it" is a bridge too far.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| Minor but important correction: it did not find that "works
| that lack the force of law" are uncopyrightable per se. It
| found that works created by or for legislators with
| "legislative authority" are uncopyrightable, even if they
| lack the force of law.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| Yes. I truncated the quote in a bad spot. Thanks for the
| correction!
| euroderf wrote:
| sci-hub ?
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Imagine if the original international standards of weights and
| measures charged for access to their master units and
| restricted data about their quantities. The lack of vision is
| remarkable, yet symptomatic of the EU.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| >The lack of vision is remarkable, yet symptomatic of the EU.
|
| ...and the rest of the world, judging by the comments. And
| also, let's not forget the EU is a collection of countries.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > let's not forget the EU is a collection of countries
|
| Well, sort of. But why is that relevant?
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| What is outstanding about the EU is that it restricts the
| economic growth of it's member states. I've seen it argued
| that this is not merely the fault of poor governance., like
| the rest of the world, rather it's an inherent feature of
| the way the European Community was set up. Their lack of
| concern for Free Market principles is not just due to a
| contempt for small business but rather an inability to
| accommodate them. (the sole exception may be subsidising
| the French farming industry).
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| Its not just French farmers who are subsidised though -
| farmers all across the EU avail of various subsidies,
| grants, etc.
| slim wrote:
| each time I had to look up an iso standard, I found it on
| libgen. Thank you pirates!
| seydor wrote:
| I got dizzy with all the acronyms (and i m in the EU)
|
| How does this thing apply to online services and stuff that is
| offered as a service in general?
| di4na wrote:
| Same as everything else
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| This is probably like asking cats to self-herd, but is there
| value in creating a FOSS spokes-group - that can basically solve
| Kissingers problem - "When I want to speak to Europe, who do I
| call?".
|
| It would have to be something like a revolving body of FOSS
| luminaries who are willing to take the high level meetings and a
| smaller body of administrators and presumably some voting. I mean
| you can speak to debian, to the PSF etc.
| reedciccio wrote:
| Open Source Initiative and Open Forum Europe and Eclipse
| Foundation and many more... Check the signatures to open letter
| to the Commission on the cyber resilience act and consider
| donating to these organizations to keep educating policy makers
| https://newsroom.eclipse.org/news/announcements/open-letter-...
| nsajko wrote:
| FFII comes to mind, apart from the other answers:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_a_Free_Informat...
| dalbasal wrote:
| "FOSS Politics" might be a good idea. Being open and being
| authorative have a complex interplay and FOSS-like approaches
| can do things that regualtor-and firms complex cannot.
|
| Ultimately, FOSS and regulators are aligned in places where
| regulators and firms are opposed. That opens up possibilities.
| ixxie wrote:
| I would love to hear if anybody knows of any organizations
| advocating FOSS in the EU. I would happily throw some money in
| their direction.
|
| Quick Ducking and I found FSF Europe: https://fsfe.org/
|
| I'm guessing the European Pirate Party also engages with this
| topic: https://european-pirateparty.eu/
| pjc50 wrote:
| The nearest thing to that is https://edri.org/, who have been
| around for about 20 years, back when there was a fight over
| software patenting.
| sylware wrote:
| That's why "standards" are not enough: simple but able to do a
| good enough job, stable in time "standards".
|
| It is often less visually appealing, but at least you have the
| guarantee to be able to build with a reasonable amount of effort
| real-life alternatives.
|
| It is the same with open source software.
|
| That's only about the technical aspect, then you have the "legal"
| aspect: you will need to perform lobbying and to have lawyers.
|
| Big Tech has, literaly, not money limit, keep that in mind. There
| is no "competitive" anything here.
| imdoor wrote:
| What is the context here? What are the mentioned standards that
| the open source developers will need to comply to?
|
| Edit: from the linked article
| https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/eu-cra-secure-coding-solut...
|
| > The extremely short version: The EU is going to task a
| standardisation body to write a document that tells everyone
| marketing products and software in the EU how to code securely.
| This to further the EU Essential Cybersecurity Requirements. For
| critical software and products, EU notified bodies (which until
| now have mostly done physical equipment and process
| certifications) will do audits to determine if code and products
| adhere to this standard. And if not, there could be huge fines.
| secondcoming wrote:
| How long until Rust becomes mandatory, and use of any other
| language opens the developer up to Reckless Endangerment
| charges
| zith wrote:
| Note that this article interchangeably uses EU and Europe when
| referring to the European Union and its member countries.
|
| It might seem silly, but I think it bears repeating that not all
| countries in Europe are part of the European union.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| The same way USA is America so Eu is Europe. And when people
| say Africa they mean Subsaharan Africa. And asia is what is
| east of the Middle East. Language works like that way
| sometimes.
| beebeepka wrote:
| I hadn't even heard of a "middle east" until I started using
| the internet. If that's what the anglosphere calls the
| middle, then what's the near east? Turns out near east is the
| "middle east".
|
| Same with Africa. These may be relevant to you but are in no
| way universal
| TRiG_Ireland wrote:
| These days, many are preferring "Western Asia" over "Middle
| East".
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If that 's what the anglosphere calls the middle, then
| what's the near east? Turns out near east is the "middle
| east"_
|
| Near East was traditionally the former Ottoman Empire [1].
| It's why Turkey straddles Europe (and Egypt North Africa).
| It's a synonym for the Middle East more in contemporary
| American English than British.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > And when people say Africa they mean Subsaharan Africa
|
| I don't think I've ever seen someone use "Africa" in a way
| that excludes the Sahara?
| justrealist wrote:
| When people say "Africa/n" in a cultural or ethnographic
| context, Egypt is generally not in the frame.
| seydor wrote:
| Not really the same. 'America' is less used than "north
| america" and "south america" or 'Americas', and nobody would
| call the US "North america". Since important countries such
| as UK and Switzerland are not part of the EU, and since
| individual countries are just as well known as EU itself,
| "Europe" or "Western europe" does not stand for EU , except
| when the context makes it clear.
| jgilias wrote:
| People also often say America, when talking _only_ about a
| single country there called "United States of America".
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| I don't mind the usage of "America" so much, but the term
| "American" just seems to be appropriated for U.S. citizens.
| Unfortunately, there isn't a decent term that refers to U.S.
| citizens, but not e.g. Mexicans or Canadians. It's possible
| to separate out Brazilians, Peruvians etc. by using "North
| Americans", but there seems to be a missing word.
| umanwizard wrote:
| "America" means "the United States of America" in English
| despite that not being its original meaning, nor its meaning
| in various other languages (Romance languages especially).
|
| "Europe" doesn't mean "the EU" in any language, though maybe
| it will shift and mean that someday.
| hoorible wrote:
| Yeah in French it's the same (at least here in CAN); if
| someone says "en Amerique" nobody is confused about whether
| they mean the continent, or asks "du Nord ou Sud?" We all
| just get that we're talking about the US.
| jgilias wrote:
| Apparently it's shifting as we speak, Wikipedia
| disambiguation page for "Europe" already lists "European
| Union" as one possible meaning:
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe_(disambiguation)
| nsajko wrote:
| Some rando's Wikipedia edit is not relevant.
| gdprrrr wrote:
| Wiktionary has at least one source
| https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Europe
| kneebonian wrote:
| Called it, all the nonsense about "security" that the politicians
| have been clambering for in fact has nothing to do with real
| security "beyond the circus" but has everything to do with
| controlling who can make and release software. I'll give you a
| hint who they are going to allow create and release software, if
| you're revenue isn't described with the word billions it isn't
| you.
| cryptonector wrote:
| This is par for the course for ISO and ITU-T and others. It
| really holds back development.
| radicalbyte wrote:
| I've spent the last two years fighting against this: with the EU-
| DCC we were open source first. Everything is on Github split over
| two organisations - the contractor provide usable example
| implementations and the Technical Group have all of the
| specifications (including a lot of examples!) in our own github
| organisation. We also have a lot of libraries there, examples of
| the entire stack (from Soup to Nuts) and documentation which is
| maintained.
|
| My experience with the EUDI Wallet have been less good: there has
| been some very good work within the EC to use modern OSS tooling
| (markdown > Word Documents) but then they have standardised on
| using the Mobile Driver License, a specification which is hidden
| behind an ISO paywall.
|
| Given the enormous sums spent by the EC and Member States on
| these systems, everything - and I mean _EVERYTHING_ - should be
| built on open standards.
|
| The EC/Member States are more than capable of setting up an
| Apache Foundation-like to handle all of this. I don't know what
| is lacking?
| blibble wrote:
| > The EC/Member States are more than capable of setting up an
| Apache Foundation-like to handle all of this. I don't know what
| is lacking?
|
| it is by design
|
| once you realise the EU is set up to prioritise the
| "Mittelstand" over all other parts of the economy everything
| makes sense
| leoedin wrote:
| I suspect it's primarily due to the legislators simply not
| understanding or caring about these issues. We see it time and
| time again with issues around technology - the people writing
| the legislation just aren't interested enough to understand,
| and so are very susceptible to lobbying by people with vested
| interests.
| nforgerit wrote:
| They keep telling us "not to worry" yet they regularly come up
| with idiotic ideas. This essentially reads like "how to kill your
| living ecosystem in three easy letters and replace it with
| oligopolies".
|
| Especially the part about certifications from TUV and Dekra is so
| funny. Those institutions have absolutely no idea what they're
| doing esp. in all things digital.
|
| This might be fearmongering but I'm seeing us already getting
| nudged to some kind of Java EE standards that can nicely be
| taught in universities, applied in public and private
| institutions in dysfunctional ways and finally nicely be
| certified by aforementioned certification bodies. What a world.
| selimnairb wrote:
| Anytime I need to reference a standard that is paywalled, I say
| "fuck your standard" and move on. Bodies like OGC manage to make
| the standards available to all, not sure why others can't do the
| same. The answer is probably due to some such perversity of
| capitalism though.
| nologic01 wrote:
| Politicians should be required to have an open source repo as a
| precondition for office.
|
| No kidding, what public bodies need is not appointed
| executionaries for corporate strategies.
|
| While obviously not everything must or can be open source, it is
| a vital ingredient of modern digitial democracies.
|
| So until you see a politician commit to a repo you can assume
| that there is a huge gap between what we need and what the
| political class has been trained to deliver.
| dekken_ wrote:
| Maybe a naive question, but why is any of this "the governments"
| responsibility, and not just between the buy and seller?
| kzrdude wrote:
| A well-functioning market has rules. Different rules might be
| appropriate depending on the market.
|
| As an example, rules that prevent phone subscriber lock-in and
| makes it easy to switch provider, those constrain the
| possibilities of the providers, but at the same time they
| facilitate fierce competition over end-user prices - possibly
| creating a better market by creating a good playing field for
| the competition to play out.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Well, that's a debate.
|
| Do you need/want a centralized authority dictating requirements
| for quality, safety, and interoperability? When and how much?
| [deleted]
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Well that's why these entities have a constitution, to define
| government's prerogative. So to answer your own question you
| need to read the EU constitution.
| pjc50 wrote:
| _Some_ standards are definitely required; electrical safety for
| mains items, non-toxic paint, FCC style emissions control etc.
| A world of no product standards is basically worse than
| AliExpress. Or people 's regular complaints about Amazon.
| bootsmann wrote:
| Its good for the consumer because replacement parts can be
| sourced from many different places. Imagine if each big
| furniture shop had their own exclusive screw sizes And you have
| to repair the leg of your chair.
| vrglvrglvrgl wrote:
| [dead]
| madsbuch wrote:
| A part og me would find it interesting to see hat would happen,
| if CRA makes OS developers fully liable. It would probably result
| in most developers straight up shutting down their projects.
|
| Most commercial projects use open source as a core and integral
| part of their offering, for which they would have to maintain
| this software as liable corporate projects.
|
| My assumption is that this would result in a non-trivial price
| jump for software.
| di4na wrote:
| More realistically, the law would not be enforced.
| croes wrote:
| MS and Google would go bankrupt
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-18 23:03 UTC)