summary of Re: Beyond 'open standard'

[Stefano Maffulli]

On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 10:02 +0200, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> 2) if yes, what would that term be?

well, thanks everybody for the comments.

Alex Hudson suggested:
> Probably "royalty free standard"

It is a fine term, but probably it carries some confusion: what is
royalty free?  The patent license?  or the access to the specification?
I think it is acceptable to pay for the specifications of a standard,
provided that implementing the standard and distributing software in
source form is allowed.  So probably royalty free is not the best
solution.

Ben Finney suggested:
> "open, freely-implementable standard"

not bad, but long (and even longer in Italian: implementabile
liberamente)

Sean Daly suggested:
> "open unencumbered standard"

and Sam Liddicott added an 'and' to it.  That is a fine term, too.  But
like non-discriminatory it carries a negation in front.  In any case I
couldn't find a simple translation in Italian and gave up on this too.

Giacomo Poderi suggested:
> to take some distances from the 'open'/'free' terminology and use a
> new term, like:
> fair standard

and I stop here.  I like this: fair is a good term. Like in "fair trade"
or "fair play" it carries a positive meaning, non discrimination is
included.  IMHO we have a clear winner here.  What do you think?

cheers
stef