I've been part of a team developing C++ compilers and run-time libraries. We used the final draft, which (at least for C++) is freely available. I suspect anyone relying on the final text (were it to differ from the last public draft) would be disappointed to discover that pretty much no-one uses it.
It doesn't seem to me to be a terrible trade-off to say that ad-hoc use via public drafts is fine, but if you need to use the actual spec for whatever reason then you're probably being paid to abide by the spec and it makes sense to charge for it.
Where I strenuously object to non-public specifications is where they're referenced in (and required by) legislation: if ignorance of the law is no excuse, the law had better be freely available.
I agree that the legislative concern is more serious, but think you are underestimating the harm of ad-hoc use.
When I want to reference an official specification, it is gennerally not a need. I can normally satisfy my own usecase by hacking together enough knowledge from reverse engineering and public sources (often with less effort then actually reading the spec requires), but I view it as my responsabilty to be spec compliant wherever possible.
A spec is only as good as it is followed. By not making the spec free, it is less valuable to me even if I pay for it, because there are now even more noncompliant systems out there I might need to interlop with.
Basically there are annotations that are considered part of the law but they are behind copyright and can't be distributed in the way you expect public laws to be.
Comments
I've been part of a team developing C++ compilers and run-time libraries. We used the final draft, which (at least for C++) is freely available. I suspect anyone relying on the final text (were it to differ from the last public draft) would be disappointed to discover that pretty much no-one uses it.
It doesn't seem to me to be a terrible trade-off to say that ad-hoc use via public drafts is fine, but if you need to use the actual spec for whatever reason then you're probably being paid to abide by the spec and it makes sense to charge for it.
Where I strenuously object to non-public specifications is where they're referenced in (and required by) legislation: if ignorance of the law is no excuse, the law had better be freely available.
I agree that the legislative concern is more serious, but think you are underestimating the harm of ad-hoc use.
When I want to reference an official specification, it is gennerally not a need. I can normally satisfy my own usecase by hacking together enough knowledge from reverse engineering and public sources (often with less effort then actually reading the spec requires), but I view it as my responsabilty to be spec compliant wherever possible.
A spec is only as good as it is followed. By not making the spec free, it is less valuable to me even if I pay for it, because there are now even more noncompliant systems out there I might need to interlop with.
... anyone relying on the final text... would be disappointed to discover that pretty much no-one uses it.
Indeed! A "standard" that costs $100 to read is not actually a standard at all. The standard is, by definition, what the users think it is.
One is reminded of the legal fight over the public posting of Georgia's penal code.
More info? I tried to google and I can't find any good links - was it that only people that could afford printed copies had access to the Law?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/appeals-court-tells-ge...
Basically there are annotations that are considered part of the law but they are behind copyright and can't be distributed in the way you expect public laws to be.
Link here has some info about it:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20181019/12232640876/appea...