[Fsf-friends] Futility of going after ISO

CK Raju, Thrissur ck.thrissur at gmail.com
Sat Apr 19 13:55:22 IST 2008

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Nagarjuna G. <nagarjun at gnowledge.org> wrote:
 > free software supporters , hackers community and  several industries  do
 > support free/open standards.  This community is not small.   ISO
 > demonstrated its inability already.  We have to therefore make an attempt to
 > create an alternate body.  May be an initiative to create an alternate body
 > may trigger ISO from restructuring itself and may become better than it is
 > now.
 ISO may have become too big and too large which may be preventing it
 to adapt effectively. But, as you rightly point out, it caters only to
 a section of society, for purposes that favours their businesses, with
 least concern for the marginalised - it can never be a
 government-sort-of-mechanism that way which takes into account the
 welfare of its poorest citizens.

  "ISO only launches the development of new standards for which there
 is clearly a market requirement..."
 [http://www.iso.org/iso/support/faqs/faqs_standards.htm]. It should be
 clear to us now, that as an organisation, ISO possesses a deep-rooted
 cognitive disorder, where negotiations or such efforts would induce
 little meaning. Its an apolitical organisation worthy enough to be
 disowned by our community which is a political one, having firm goals.

 > Of late, free software movement is mostly on the defensive.  It will be a
 > good way to take up proactive steps rather than spend our limited energies
 > in defending the moves of MS and others.
 True, ROS team these days says "For every OS, there is an equal and
 opposite ReactOS."

 > Meanwhile, we should point out to the community that ISO standard does not
 > imply free/open standard.  Their criteria are purely technical, and clearly
 > favors the interests of a section of the Industry.   We should create a
 > portal that shows how many of the ISO standards do not clear as free/open
 > standards to make our point.  We may even demand ISO and appeal to remove
 > 'open' from the OOXML, for that does mislead the users in a big way.
 Looking at the increasing interest and  participation from premier
 research and educational organisations towards free-software
 activities, what is needed, could just be a "GPL" clone for standards,
 which can put the whole domain of standards into an evolutionary

 Please take the lead and do it, Nagarjuna. All the best.
 CK Raju

More information about the Fsf-friends mailing list