summary of Re: Beyond 'open standard'

Jeroen Dekkers jeroen at
Wed Jul 19 20:31:15 UTC 2006

At Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:41:03 +0200,
Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
> Because in the end, and "Open Standard" is something of an oxymoron:
> if only one or a few players are using it, it is merely a proprietary
> format or interface, but not a standard.

An Open Standard isn't an oxymoron IHMO. You've got proprietary
standards like MP3 and de facto standards like MS Word.

The Dutch government actually requires patents to be licensed
royalty-free in their definition of Open Standard (see, in the middle there is
the English definition). I've seen the EC using this definition too,
but got critised for that by BSA/CompTIA/etc, so I'm not sure they are
still doing that.

I think using this definition is the way to go: nobody is against Open
Standards, the only thing you've convince people of is that a standard
isn't open when patents aren't licensed royalt-free.

Jeroen Dekkers

More information about the Discussion mailing list