"First some definitions. In this post let's define an "open
standard" as one that is: 1) freely available, 2) developed in an
open process and 3) freely implementable, e.g., is royalty free. I
freely acknowledge that there are interests out there that attempt
to soften these criteria, but that only demonstrates the
competitive power presented by truly open standards. We see similar
"dumbing down" pressures on other popular marks of distinction,
such as the constant pressure by "big agriculture" to allow more
permissive use of pesticides in organic/biologique food. It is
almost a law of nature that any item of relative scarcity and value
will be counterfeited. Dumbing down definitions is just one way to
counterfeit an open standard.
"At the same time there is a clearly a spectrum of openness,
from proprietary, trade-secret technology at one extreme,
progressing through proprietary non-RAND specifications,
proprietary RAND specifications, RAND standards to RF standards.
But for sake of argument, let's draw the line for open standards at
these three criteria: freely available, open process, and freely
implementable."
