Talk:Open standard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reference

Reference 15 is a dead link --Raboof 19:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

should we mention stuff like OGG, HTML, etc too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs)

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.195.6 (talk • contribs)

Some bodies concerned in one way or another with computing standards are IAB (RFC and STD), ISO, ANSI, DoD, ECMA, IEEE, IETF, OSF, W3C. But some of these standards orginizations are more open than other.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.213.195.6 (talk • contribs)

New topic - In reading this page I find that there is some confusion created between two different (IMHO) and important concepts, open standards and open source. I offer the following links to papers that develop this point:

• "Cathedrals, Libraries and Bazaars" http://www.csrstds.com/cathedrals.html This paper discusses the difference and similarities of open source and open standards.
• "The Principles of Open Standards" http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.html This paper develop 10 parameters that, at least for some, define open standards. Likely even 10 parameters is not enough, but some have found this list helpful.

If there is interest in this work I am willing to contribute. But I am not comfortable changing the existing copy without such interest. Ken Krechmer, Fellow International Center for Standards Research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.94.61 (talk • contribs)

These papers are better than the article. Thanks Podmok 21:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. These are excellent papers. Are they GFDL-compatible? I wouldn't normally have expected that of the ACM. If they are, can they go into arXiv or some such open repository? LeadSongDog 17:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead that's what a wiki is made for! You could also simply write a new section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.100.243 (talk • contribs)

World Wide Web Consortium's definition

Citation 17 does not appear to verify the list of criteria said to be W3C --Leighblackall (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How is an Open Standard different from a Standard?

This definition is completely useless for distinguishing between an Open Standard and a regular old Standard such as standards bodies have been writing for centuries. Comments? RussNelson 02:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Regular Old Standards" have been widely considered to be "Open Standards" for a long time. People who want a term that means something different should probably try to come up with a new term instead of trying to impose a new definition on one that is already widely used. This would avoid confusion. Some suggestions: "Royalty-Free Standard" or "License-Free Standard" or "Restriction-Free Standard". —Mulligatawny 19:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

open standards are always royalty-free unless the BSA steps in and proposes their own ones. 84.129.121.52 21:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

BSA = Boy Scouts of America?? –Mulligatawny 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cute. BSA here = Business Software AllianceLeadSongDog 15:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why singular?

Why is this Open standard, not Open standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatalis (talk • contribs)

That doesn't seem like a big problem - there is a redirect page in place already anyway. —Mulligatawny 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dutch definnition

http://www.ososs.nl/index.jsp?alias=english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.119.131.73 (talk • contribs)

The Netherlands is an EU member state, and the referenced definition appears just to be a duplicate of the one marked as an EU definition in the article. —Mulligatawny 18:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It is on a different level. Endorsement of members states is actually quite important. --Arebenti (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Expansion request

currently obviously working entirely within the domain of computing, which is a little too specific. Also does not clearly put that domain in a wider context. Probably needs attention from someone who knows about standards processes. Andrewferrier 18:09, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

Disagree. Software is an artifact which can be freely redistributed. All other goods which comply with standards are sold, thus RAND patent licensing is suitable for those goods, whereas RF is required for software unless you mean to exclude open source implementations. But if you do, how open is the standard? An open standard must specify RF terms for any patent licenses solely because of software. That's a change in the meaning of the term as it has traditionally been used. Traditionally an open standard is one that has been developed in the open, where anybody can watch; as opposed to a vendor or consortium standard. RussNelson 19:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

we are not discussind whether RAND is good or bad. Standards licensed under RAND terms != Open Standards 84.129.121.52 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

According to you, perhaps. Not according to everybody. Wikipedia is not here to push your personal POV. –Mulligatawny 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not there to corrupt professional terms. Better stick to official definitions by government agencies (which exclude rand). Arebenti 14:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Wikipedia not consider government approval to be necessary for the content of its articles. I am not saying that we should remove things stated by governments, but I don't think we should constrain ourselves to such approaches either. It may also be worth noting that the ITU is part of the United Nations, so it is an (inter-)governmental organization (as well as allowing some lesser-status form of company membership in recent years). My impression is that the drive to redefine the term is relatively recent. 15 years ago I don't think you would find many people who wouldn't consider the standards produced by ISO, ITU, or ANSI (or today's IETF, etc.) to be open standards, despite their allowance for the imposition of RAND licensing terms. —Mulligatawny 05:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Time for a review of What wikipedia is not and wp:no original research.LeadSongDog 13:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here the situation is delicate because an ITU ad hoc group of patent attorneys succeeded to present a definition that does contradict open standards but declares ITU standardisation pratice as "open". Double vested interest. a) interests of patent attorneys b) interest of ITU to claim to be "open". Originally "open standardisation" was an ideal model used as criticism of the traditional standard setting model. See the Danish definition paper which reflects that. The ITU definition had absolutely no significance in the market nor at international organisations. Arebenti 23:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparing current version to 2004 Jul 19 (when Andrewferrier raised the request) the article has been greatly expanded. I'm pulling the expand tag. LeadSongDog 19:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong!

Some definitions of the term "open standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the ITU, ISO, and IEC permit requiring patent licensing fees for implementation.

ITU is no "open standards" body, nor is ISO. However open standards can be turned into ISO standards as well. Open Standards == free usage, not licensed, developed in an open process without control. 84.129.121.52 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly one opinion. It isn't what the article describes. It also doesn't match any standards body that I know of. "without control"??? If you can find a source that supports your definition, you could add it as another definition. It probably would look a lot like the Perens definition, apart from the "no control" part. Paul Koning 18:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

BSA and CompTIA (Microsoft lobbyists) are interested in to show that ISO, IEC and ITU grant "open standards" and so "open standards" can be licensed under RAND terms. But there is no single document in any of these international organizations that states that they grant "open standards". ISO, IEC and ITU grant "standards", no matter or if open or RAND licensed. The only organization that always grant "open standards" is W3C.

By the way, there are laws in Denmark, France and Spain that declare an "open standard" as royalty-free (well, in Spain the "Electronic Administration" Law ([Ley 11/2007]) states that you cannot impose any payment because IP, what is the same as "royalty-free" at the end).-- anonymous contributor

"For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF[1], ITU, ISO, and IEC permit requiring patent licensing fees for implementation" They do not grant "open standards", just standards. Arebenti 13:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As the article correctly states, that's one view but only one view. You're entitled to your opinion but please express it as an opinion, not a fact. Paul Koning 14:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Then prove me that IETF, ISO etc. are 'open standards' bodies and explain me the difference between "standards" and "open standards". In fact all these standard bodies don't use the "open standards" terminology. ITU-T is special here. An utmost closed organisation where patent attorneys propose their own definition of "open standards" which basically makes all ITU-T standards "open standards". That is insignificant for professionals.Arebenti 14:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to. The first three paragraphs of the article already do that. The article is neutral (WP:NPOV) -- it describes that there are several different views on what constitutes an "open standard". Paul Koning 14:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is falsely driving to mean that ISO, IEC and ITU grant "open standards" when officially they grant "standards" (without "open"). An article in Wikipedia must not drive to false understandings. The reference to ISO, IEC and ITU has no relation with the matter in question and is only confusing to the readers. I've added "Anyway none of these organizations states to grant "open standards", but only "standards" at all." to clarify that point, but anyway, all these references to ISO, IEC and ITU should be removed since they are not "open standard bodies", but "standard bodies". All these implicit misunderstandings have to do only with commercial interests of companies interested in to jump over legislations that force to use "open standards", but by now, all the legal definitions of "open standard" in world are "royalty free" (ITU-T is not a legal body, by the way).–Rizox 01:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The term Open Standard was primarily invented to distinguish from regular RAND-able standards. The ITU defnition is out-of-step here. ISO standards, for example, are certainly not necessarily open standards (some are) because they can be RAND licensed, they can be only available for sale, and they are copyright-restricted. Some ISO standards are open, however: for example, the multiple parts of IS-19757 (I edit part 3) are open.Rick Jelliffe 02:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Right! I propose to move to the bottom the ITU-T deffinition. It is a non sense to have an "anacronic", "outdated" and "interested" definition of open standard as the first reference when actually all the other official and more important definitions say just the contrary: "open standards must be royalty-free" (no matter of the interest of Microsoft lobbyist (BSA, CompTIA, ACT, etc.) in to change this fact). ITU-T definition of "open standard" was intended mainly to preserve the old interests of the owners of GSM.–Rizox 20:15, October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, regarding the assertion by "anonymous contributor" above saying that "there is no single document in any of these international organizations (ISO, IEC and ITU) that states that they grant 'open standards'." And the assertion by Arebenti that "these standards bodies don't use the 'open standards' terminology." Those assertions are not true. Look in the article. There you will find the definition of "open standards" that has been adopted by the ITU (which has a common IPR policy with ISO and IEC). You will also find a link there to where the definition is posted on the ITU web site. –Mulligatawny 04:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Look, the ITU can be lobbied and is under full control of old telcoms, originally governmental telcom agencies. Lobbying took place. To the daily business of the ITU the term 'open standards' has absolutely no significance. First the "definition" was developed by an ad hoc subgroup of patent attorneys inside a branch of ITU. It has not any significance. --Arebenti (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The consideration "The ITU-T, ITU-R, ISO, and IEC have harmonized on a common patent policy [2] under the banner of the WSC. Thus, the above ITU-T definition can be considered also applicable in ITU-R, ISO, and IEC contexts." is also false. The definition of "open standard" done by "ITU-T" doesn't extrapolate to ITU-R, ISO and IEC and cannot be applicable to them. Indeed, cannot be extrapolated to them the fact that they would grant "open standards". ITU-R, ISO and IEC grant "standards", some of them open and some closed (under RAND licenses -whatever that euphemistic term means in real world exactly-). Please, show me where in the whole [Common Patent Policy] is mentioned the word "open standard". –Rizox 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, but it does say

It follows, therefore, that a patent embodied fully or partly in a Recommendation | Deliverable must be accessible to everybody without undue constraints. To meet this requirement in general is the sole objective of the code of practice. The detailed arrangements arising from patents (licensing, royalties, etc.) are left to the parties concerned, as these arrangements might differ from case to case.

.

This sounds to me like open, but possibly RAND.LeadSongDog 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't say that ISO, IEC and ITU-R accept the definition of open standard of ITU-T (telecom companies). Additionally, the "Deliverable" refers to copyright, not to patents. Indeed it declares that agreements on patents are not fixed by the Common Patent Policy. Actually, the CPP only warranties RAND conditions. Indeed, if you check the [Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration Form] that is a document mandatory to fill out per every standard, you will check that the compromise to grant your patents can be RAND or royalty free, you can choose (read the texts of the three options). –Rizox 01:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, but the point is that the declaration has to be completed before the patented content gets written into the standard, so the body can, for instance, avoid unnecessarily using RAND content in the standard when an RF alternative is available. The forms just provide disclosure to the standards body from the patent owner.LeadSongDog 03:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is that the entire subject matter of this article is opinion, not fact. Maybe the right answer is to delete it. Paul Koning 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, the answer is to flag FACT, NPOV and NOR where needed until we work up a balanced analysis. (I think you implied as much yourself above.) If it's not flagged, grousing won't do much.LeadSongDog 16:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Open Standards

I've removed ISM3 from the list. It is plain at ISM3 Consortium that usage will be discriminatory, i.e. members will get heavily discounted registration.LeadSongDog 14:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've commented GSM as not being open standard except under the interested ITU-T definition. It fails to match all other definitions because it is fully covered of unlicensed patents. Please, just have a look in Google for "gsm + patents +court" and check how controversial are the patent issues of GSM. How can be considered open such an standard?! It should be removed from the list of examples, it is a fake open standard –Rizox 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think keeping it, with the sort of comment you added, is exactly right. This article is about the term "open standard". That's a marketing term, so it means different things depending on who does the talking. Because it means different things, a good article talks about all that. And it does: the reference to GSM gave you an an opportunity to point out in the article that GSM is an "open standard" by one of the commonly used variants of that term, but not by others. If you remove GSM, then you're no longer describing neutrally, you're selectively removing some of the picture. Some of us may feel that ITU's definition isn't right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's out there and is a factor in the world of standards. So an encyclopedia, being descriptive, describes that. The edit you just did is an improvement, but removing mention of GSM would not be. Paul Koning 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

External links

I'm undoing [1] which appears to be an attempt at anonymous self-promotion by the author of the the added link to a paper. Amazingly, that copyrighted paper espouses open standards and yet is licensed under CC-Attrib-Noncommercial-NoDerivative. Reading it, it bears a remarkable similarity to this article. I'm inclined to wonder if it was intended as an arcane sort of humour.LeadSongDog 15:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Programming languages

It's bit strange to see programming languages listed, especially only two, and those two at that.

Pretty much all programming languages are open in the sense that you can implement them freely. Most are open also in the sense of an open standardization process.

Long ago that might have been less true; there are some examples of one-company programming languages, but those are long gone.

Ada and C# are odd ones to mention here, though: Ada because its name is a trademark subject to assorted restrictions, and C# because it (like Java) is largely the work of a single company. For that reason, there are many more obvious examples: Fortran, Algol, Pascal, Cobol, C, C++, and so on.

Paul Koning (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Academics

The suggestion that all academics use a definition precluding fees seems awfully broad to me, IMHO it should be qualified without falling into weasel wording Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It clearly needs a reference, assuming it is true which I doubt. After all, there are plenty of universities that patent their work, and require licensing fees (royalties) for the use of those patents. Paul Koning (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Legitimacy of standards merged

Original takl page available: Talk:Legitimacy_of_standards--Kozuch (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

For now I've commented it out until it can be integrated in. It's completely unreferenced.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

ISO & IEC should be deleted from opener

The sentence about the ISO and the IEC should be deleted from the opener. It is off-topic. As the sentence does not define what the ISO or IEC deem an "open" standard, then it has nothing to do with the subject. --Lester 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Google ranking

"One of the most popular definitions of the term "open standard", as measured by Google ranking, is the one developed by Bruce Perens."

O RLY? Where is this metric defined? How about using it for settling presidential elections, seeing that it is so standard that it doesn't even warrant a link in an article itself about standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.0.118 (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Distinction between "open standard" and "open format"

The distinction between "open standard" and "open format" should probably be addressed in the article. --Bejnar (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitions that permit

'Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard.' This has nothing to do with definitions of the term, it depends on the negotiation power of a standard body. Of course a standard *ideally* should not enable a single party to exercise control. But in a world where patents exist as overriding rights, standard bodies try to arrange themselves with patent holders and seek a compromise to get their standard adopted. It is just a matter of policy. Some persons prefer more strict policies on patents and introduce terms as "open standards". Then others came up with their own definition of openess which ressemble the status quo and actually define all "standards" as "open standards". However, all this is no controversy regarding the term "standard". Arebenti (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Degrees of standards freedom

After having had to spend some time understanding the issues around free and open standards I whipped up the Image:Degrees of standards freedom.svg image, only to have it removed as "absurd" by another editor. I'd be interested to hear what other editors think about how this image might be improved as I believe it gives a clear indication of the entire spectrum at a glance:

• Closed standards (e.g. SMB) are typically proprietary/undocumented and may be patent encumbered
• Standards/Specifications are documented but may also be encumbered and are often only available for a fee
• Open standards are freely available and freely implementable but may still be controlled by a single vendor
• Free standards are truly free in the sense of being developed collaboratively by any interested parties

I don't see that this classification is so absurd, and it is supported by the references in the article itself. -- samj _in^out 14:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Closed standards are not typically undocumented, and undocumented is not even related (never mind synonymous) with the term proprietary. Proprietary means to own, it has no relationship with how open a standard is, and even less todo with whether the proprietars have chosen to document the standard, which is far more likely than with non-propritary standards. Also note that open is not distinct from proprietary, the terms are unrelated, proprietary protocols can be open or not, they are separate categories. Standards may not be documented, as standard means "usual" or "accepted" but does not have to be documented, that's the difference between standard, and specication. I don't see what a fee has to do with that, though it's the first time this image actual displays some relationship to the topic of the article. An open standard, once again, does not have to be fully documented, and even if that was a statistical definitive, I'd like to see some sources first, at the least. Once again, you finally show some relationship to the topic by mentioning that the topic is about royalty free standards. The last category is the most absurd, being a movement away from generic cateogorisation, to a self-imposed, subjective consideration of "free", as defined in specific standards and not distinct from the possibilities of the generic term, "Open Standard". Primarily though, I shouldn't have to argue these individual points, original research is simply not welcome. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The solution here is for samj to cite the source that provides the information codified in his diagram per wp:V. We can then discuss the question of whether it is indeed a wp:RS If so, the OR question goes away.LeadSongDog come howl 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the diagram is that it compresses a multidimensional question into a one-dimensional straightjacket. For example, free standards may be encumbered by patents. Dimensions include at least (a) the availability of the specification, (b) restrictions on implementations, (c) IP encumbrances, (d) royalties, (e) openness of the specification creation process, (f) openness of the specification review and approval process.. and there are probably more. Paul Koning (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, "free standards may be encumbered by patents" recalls "he's free to drag that ball and chain anywhere within shotgun range". It may be differently constrained, but it certainly isn't free.LeadSongDog come howl 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess that depends on which "free" you use. I was commenting on the version of "free" given at the top of this section ("Free standards are truly free in the sense of being developed collaboratively by any interested parties"). That includes IETF standards, obviously, and even less open ones such as ANSI or ISO ones. Yet all those can be encumbered by patents. Paul Koning (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you make the correct argument (accidently) by way of terminology here. "even less open ones". The primary issue here is that "free" is not an objective or generic term, it is used at specific times, by specific organisation/groups/individuals, to refer to a certain set of (situation dependent) criteria. The term open however, is the highest possible terminology for the concept which covers what may or may not be considered free. LeadSongDog: While I agree with your first comment about the requirement for sources, don't allow the fact you (or possibly your faulty legal system?) don't understand what a patent is, to allow subjective and incorrect arguments about the image. Patents have nothing to do with standards, in the slightest, in any way, from any direction, in any sane consideration. The "physical" standard (existence/structure) is impossible to register under any IP concept of the correct definition, copyright law covers the description of the standard (specification), and patents (if registered) can at best cover technologies that the standard exists to support. However, the organisation of a structure, is not an invention and is not covered by any sort of IP (of the correct definition applied, I still wouldn't put it past the America legal system, apolgies if they do). - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

OOXML ?

An editor has re-added Microsoft OOXML to the list of example open formats based on an ISO standard. Without getting into the whole sordid history of how MS forced taht standard by it remains a standard that has no implementations, with MS forecasting an implementation for MS Office 2010 a.k.a. Office 14. Rather than edit war, I'll raise the issue here. Does it belong? LeadSongDog come howl 21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless we're planning to rename the article "Implemented open standards", I don't see the issue. Theoretical and unimplemented open standards are no different from any other in the context of the article. Implementation is only an issue in establishing notability, but as you say, with it's sordid (little bit of an understatement...) history, this standard is a notable open standard. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

The inclusion of OOXML is marked with a 'Dubious' tag that should link to a section with this heading. I find it surprising that there are only seven open file formats in the world notable enough to get used as examples here, and that OOXML is considered clear enough to be one of them. Please see the following for some clue about the extent of the controversy:

• "Microsoft's Open Specification Promise: No Assurance for GPL". Software Freedom Law Center. 2008-03-12. ...it permits implementation under free software licenses so long as the resulting code isn't used freely.
• "Free software is software that all users have a right to copy, modify and redistribute, and as Microsoft points out in the OSP, there is no sublicensing of rights under it."[2]

--Nigelj (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)