A document not containing all details necessary for an implementation is IMHO not a standard and should not be charged for. I'm looking forward to someone asking a refund from ISO for an incomplete standard. :)
But let's assume ISO would publish only high-quality standards. Wouldn't those be worth their salt?
While I do understand that paying for any document is an issue for hobbyist, let's be honest. Every hobby has costs. A good hobby gardener probably spends $100 on books alone. So, if the standard is good, and really teaches you something, I would buy it even for a hobby.
P.S. Funny that you contributed to ZBar. Our paths cross again. :)
The problem with charging for standards is the fact that people must implement them. Since we're all supposed to follow standards, they should be public documents like IETF RFCs. Charging money for these things effectively erects a massive barrier to entry.
P.S. Yes, I wrote some code to allow ZBar to decode binary data. The ISO standard contributed to my understanding of QR code encoding modes and text encoding metadata. Are you also a contributor?
In case anyone wants to know more about this stuff, I wrote about my research in a Stack Overflow answer:
But then: who pays for the infrstructure? For the people who does the administration of those standards?
It's not that the realtor takes no money for the apartment because you do the administration for standards.
Just take a closer look at the business model of the IETF. The IETF receives about $6 Million this year doing the administration from the ISOC. The ISOC members define what "standards" are becoming standards, or should I say "dictates".
Participation in the IETF is mostly free - you can join the mailing lists and discuss the drafts. What costs is going to the physical meetings: there’s an attendance fee, as well as costs for travel and accommodation, etc.
So, in effect, IETF standards are paid for by the employers of people who participate in the IETF, in terms of giving them time to do so and paying for them to go to the meetings.
There are reasonable conflict-of-interest rules for ISOC staff, who are required to be clear when they are speaking on behalf of ISOC or in a personal capacity. Although ISOC provides additional funding, they do not oversee the IETF standards process. That job is done by the working group chairs and by the IESG (aka the IETF area directors) who are nominated by people who attend IETF meetings.
> But let's assume ISO would publish only high-quality standards. Wouldn't those be worth their salt?
Paying ISO has nothing to do with creating or distributing the standards. The developers of the standards are, in all cases I know of, not paid by ISO.
I agree that there needs to be some money for infrastructure. It shouldn't cost very much for a PDF hosting service for publicly-available PDF.
The value of a standard is that it is universally used. ISO standards are only used by people who can afford to pay for them. The very act of charging for them reduces their value.
The requirement of standards adherence for government contracts can raise interesting questions around paid-for standards, too.
Also, the point of standards isn't "learning". The point is to agree on common definitions. It enables interop, that's it.
But let's assume ISO would publish only high-quality standards. Wouldn't those be worth their salt?
While I do understand that paying for any document is an issue for hobbyist, let's be honest. Every hobby has costs. A good hobby gardener probably spends $100 on books alone. So, if the standard is good, and really teaches you something, I would buy it even for a hobby.
P.S. Funny that you contributed to ZBar. Our paths cross again. :)