@amerika #OpenStandards (and other #standards to a point) also mean it's easier to find pre-made tools to some standard that fulfill one's needs so that one doesn't need to build everything from scratch.

I doubt many individual makers will ever implement #UL2849, instead they'll just buy already-compliant kits as they'll know what it's for and why it's useful.

Keeping the standards closed also has a bunch of distasteful implications on their impact in the market.

@amerika I think that'll depend much on individual standards, whether they impose more of a burden on inventors than they provide helpful tools.

But I do agree that the current state of things stifles competition by smaller inventors against large established participants.

The reality of an end-product has a more direct impact than the standard goals (although the success of marketing also puts a sad limit on how much reality matters) but in some cases the two align, like with #UL2849.

#Standard accreditation should require #OpenStandards. #UL, #ISO and #ANSI #standards should not be paygated away, otherwise no one will use them unless they're forced to (and forcing the use of a paid "product" is basically classic #racketeering).

https://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/09/recipe-for-open-standards.html

Such an outcome is particularly egregious for safety standards like #UL2849

It's not like money can't be made at the standard compliance certification step anyway.

#Standard accreditation should require #OpenStandards. #UL, #ISO and #ANSI #standards should not be paygated away, otherwise no one will use them unless they're forced to (and forcing the use of a paid "product" is basically classic #racketeering).

https://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/09/recipe-for-open-standards.html

Such an outcome is particularly egregious for safety standards like #UL2849

#Standard accreditation should require #OpenStandards. #UL, #ISO and #ANSI #standards should not be paygated away, otherwise no one will use them unless they're forced to (and forcing the use of a paid "product" is basically classic #racketeering).

https://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/09/recipe-for-open-standards.html

Such an outcome is particularly egregious for safety standards like #UL2849

#Racket

#Standard accreditation should require #OpenStandards. #UL, #ISO and #ANSI #standards should not be paygated away, otherwise no one will use them unless they're forced to (and forcing the use of a paid "product" sounds very racketeer-y to me).

https://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/09/recipe-for-open-standards.html

Such an outcome is particularly egregious for safety standards like #UL2849