On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:23:43AM -0700, Luis Villa wrote: > Yes, I was going to say - the right solution is reference to a > well-developed definition of open standards, rather than specific > standards that may or may not be open at this time.
I agree.
FSFE maintains a definition of Open Standards that has been
through an extensive discussion process with many groups and
companies, and has served us well in many a stormy debate:
http://fsfe.org/activities/os/def.en.html
An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is
- subject to full public assessment and use without
constraints in a manner equally available to all
parties;
- without any components or extensions that have
dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet
the definition of an Open Standard themselves;
- free from legal or technical clauses that limit its
utilisation by any party or in any business model;
- managed and further developed independently of any
single vendor in a process open to the equal
participation of competitors and third parties;
- available in multiple complete implementations by
competing vendors, or as a complete implementation
equally available to all parties.
Talking about "restriction-free" standards has turned out to be a
good descriptive shorthand for all this.
Best regards,
Karsten
--
Karsten Gerloff [ ] <[email protected]>
Free Software Foundation Europe [ ][ ][ ] [http://fsfe.org]
President | | +49 176 9690 4298
Your donation powers our work! [http://fsfe.org/donate/]
Free Software Foundation Europe e.V. is a German Verein registered
at the Registergericht Hamburg (VR 17030).
pgpM01sMKUC7i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ okfn-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-discuss
