--On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 09:04 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > I think the original concern was indeed standards that (for > proprietary or other reasons) were actually kept secret. > So "freely" didn't imply "free of charge"; it meant available > to the general public. In that sense it's closely related > to "open standards". Those are standards that are open to > the general public. I think that's what we insist on, and > "free of charge" is desirable, but not essential. Right. But, to see if we are all on the same page about that, it is very different from justifying a rule that might require that authors or WGs go out and purchase a large quantity of copies of a document and distribute them. john
