Open standard

An open standard is a standard that is publicly available and has various rights to use associated with it, and may also have various properties of how it was designed (e.g. open process). There is no single definition and interpretations vary with usage.

The terms open and standard have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage. There are a number of definitions of open standards which emphasize different aspects of openness, including the openness of the resulting specification, the openness of the drafting process, and the ownership of rights in the standard. The term "standard" is sometimes restricted to technologies approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis.

The definitions of the term open standard used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand, South African and the Venezuelan governments. On the standard organisation side, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) ensures that its specifications can be implemented on a royalty-free basis.

Many definitions of the term standard permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), International Organization for Standardization (ISO), International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), and ITU-T permit their standards to contain specifications whose implementation will require payment of patent licensing fees. Among these organizations, only the IETF and ITU-T explicitly refer to their standards as "open standards", while the others refer only to producing "standards". The IETF and ITU-T use definitions of "open standard" that allow "reasonable and non-discriminatory" patent licensing fee requirements.

There are those in the open-source software community who hold that an "open standard" is only open if it can be freely adopted, implemented and extended.[1] While open standards or architectures are considered non-proprietary in the sense that the standard is either unowned or owned by a collective body, it can still be publicly shared and not tightly guarded.[2] The typical example of “open source” that has become a standard is the personal computer originated by IBM and now referred to as Wintel, the combination of the Microsoft operating system and Intel microprocessor. There are three others that are most widely accepted as “open” which include the GSM phones (adopted as a government standard), Open Group which promotes UNIX and the like, and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) which created the first standards of SMTP and TCP/IP. Buyers tend to prefer open standards which they believe offer them cheaper products and more choice for access due to network effects and increased competition between vendors.[3]

Open standards which specify formats are sometimes referred to as open formats.

Many specifications that are sometimes referred to as standards are proprietary and only available under restrictive contract terms (if they can be obtained at all) from the organization that owns the copyright on the specification. As such these specifications are not considered to be fully open. Joel West has argued that "open" standards are not black and white but have many different levels of "openness". Ultimately a standard needs to be open enough that it will become adopted and accepted in the market, but still closed enough that firms can get a return on their investment in developing the technology around the standard. A more open standard tends to occur when the knowledge of the technology becomes dispersed enough that competition is increased and others are able to start copying the technology as they implement it. This occurred with the Wintel architecture as others were able to start imitating the software. Less open standards exist when a particular firm has much power (not ownership) over the standard, which can occur when a firm’s platform “wins” in standard setting or the market makes one platform most popular.[4]

Specific definitions of an open standard

Joint IEEE, ISOC, W3C, IETF and IAB Definition

On August 12, 2012, the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Internet Society (ISOC), World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and Internet Architecture Board (IAB), jointly affirmed a set of principles which have contributed to the exponential growth of the Internet and related technologies. The “OpenStand Principles” define open standards and establish the building blocks for innovation. Standards developed using the OpenStand principles are developed through an open, participatory process, support interoperability, foster global competition, are voluntarily adopted on a global level and serve as building blocks for products and services targeted to meet the needs of markets and consumers. This drives innovation which, in turn, contributes to the creation of new markets and the growth and expansion of existing markets.

There are five, key OpenStand Principles, as outlined below:

1. Cooperation Respectful cooperation between standards organizations, whereby each respects the autonomy, integrity, processes, and intellectual property rules of the others.

2. Adherence to Principles - Adherence to the five fundamental principles of standards development, namely

  • Due process: Decisions are made with equity and fairness among participants. No one party dominates or guides standards development. Standards processes are transparent and opportunities exist to appeal decisions. Processes for periodic standards review and updating are well defined.
  • Broad consensus: Processes allow for all views to be considered and addressed, such that agreement can be found across a range of interests.
  • Transparency: Standards organizations provide advance public notice of proposed standards development activities, the scope of work to be undertaken, and conditions for participation. Easily accessible records of decisions and the materials used in reaching those decisions are provided. Public comment periods are provided before final standards approval and adoption.
  • Balance: Standards activities are not exclusively dominated by any particular person, company or interest group.
  • Openness: Standards processes are open to all interested and informed parties.

3. Collective Empowerment Commitment by affirming standards organizations and their participants to collective empowerment by striving for standards that:

  • are chosen and defined based on technical merit, as judged by the contributed expertise of each participant;
  • provide global interoperability, scalability, stability, and resiliency;
  • enable global competition;
  • serve as building blocks for further innovation; and
  • contribute to the creation of global communities, benefiting humanity.

4. Availability Standards specifications are made accessible to all for implementation and deployment. Affirming standards organizations have defined procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented under fair terms. Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND).

5. Voluntary Adoption Standards are voluntarily adopted and success is determined by the market.


ITU-T definition

The ITU-T is a standards development organization (SDO) that is one of the three sectors of the International Telecommunications Union (a specialized agency of the United Nations). The ITU-T has a Telecommunication Standardization Bureau director's Ad Hoc group on IPR that produced the following definition in March 2005, which the ITU-T as a whole has endorsed for its purposes since November 2005:[6]

The ITU-T has a long history of open standards development. However, recently some different external sources have attempted to define the term "Open Standard" in a variety of different ways. In order to avoid confusion, the ITU-T uses for its purpose the term "Open Standards" per the following definition:
"Open Standards" are standards made available to the general public and are developed (or approved) and maintained via a collaborative and consensus driven process. "Open Standards" facilitate interoperability and data exchange among different products or services and are intended for widespread adoption.
Other elements of "Open Standards" include, but are not limited to:
  • Collaborative process – voluntary and market driven development (or approval) following a transparent consensus driven process that is reasonably open to all interested parties.
  • Reasonably balanced – ensures that the process is not dominated by any one interest group.
  • Due process - includes consideration of and response to comments by interested parties.
  • Intellectual property rights (IPRs) – IPRs essential to implement the standard to be licensed to all applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis, either (1) for free and under other reasonable terms and conditions or (2) on reasonable terms and conditions (which may include monetary compensation). Negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are performed outside the SDO.
  • Quality and level of detail – sufficient to permit the development of a variety of competing implementations of interoperable products or services. Standardized interfaces are not hidden, or controlled other than by the SDO promulgating the standard.
  • Publicly available – easily available for implementation and use, at a reasonable price. Publication of the text of a standard by others is permitted only with the prior approval of the SDO.
  • On-going support – maintained and supported over a long period of time.

The ITU-T, ITU-R, ISO, and IEC have harmonized on a common patent policy [7] under the banner of the WSC. However, the ITU-T definition should not necessarily be considered also applicable in ITU-R, ISO and IEC contexts, since the Common Patent Policy [8] does not make any reference to "open standards" but rather only to "standards."

IETF definition

In section 7 of its RFC 2026, the IETF classifies specifications that have been developed in a manner similar to that of the IETF itself as being "open standards," and lists the standards produced by ANSI, ISO, IEEE, and ITU-T as examples. As the IETF standardization processes and IPR policies have the characteristics listed above by ITU-T, the IETF standards fulfill the ITU-T definition of "open standards."

However, the IETF has not adopted a specific definition of "open standard"; both RFC 2026 and the IETF's mission statement (RFC 3935) talks about "open process," but RFC 2026 does not define "open standard" except for the purpose of defining what documents IETF standards can link to.

RFC 2026 belongs to a set of RFCs collectively known as BCP 9 (Best Common Practice, an IETF policy).[9] RFC 2026 was later updated by BCP 78 and 79 (among others). As of 2011 BCP 78 is RFC 5378 (Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust),[10] and BCP 79 consists of RFC 3979 (Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology) and a clarification in RFC 4879.[11] The changes are intended to be compatible with the "Simplified BSD License" as stated in the IETF Trust Legal Provisions and Copyright FAQ based on RFC 5377.[12]

In August 2012, the IETF combined with the W3C and IEEE to launch OpenStand [13] and to publish The Modern Paradigm for Standards. This captures "the effective and efficient standardization processes that have made the Internet and Web the premiere platforms for innovation and borderless commerce". The declaration is then published in the form of RFC 6852 in January 2013.

European Interoperability Framework for Pan-European eGovernment Services

The European Union defined the term for use within its European Interoperability Framework for Pan-European eGovernment Services, Version 1.0[14] although it does not claim to be a universal definition for all European Union use and documentation.

To reach interoperability in the context of pan-European eGovernment services, guidance needs to focus on open standards.

The word "open" is here meant in the sense of fulfilling the following requirements:

  • The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organization, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
  • The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
  • The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
  • There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard[15]

Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium definition

The Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium (NCOIC) defines open standard as the following:

Specifications for hardware and/or software that are publicly available implying that multiple vendors can compete directly based on the features and performance of their products. It also implies that the existing open system can be removed and replaced with that of another vendor with minimal effort and without major interruption.[16]

Danish government definition

The Danish government has attempted to make a definition of open standards,[17] which also is used in pan-European software development projects. It states:

  • An open standard is accessible to everyone free of charge (i.e. there is no discrimination between users, and no payment or other considerations are required as a condition of use of the standard)
  • An open standard of necessity remains accessible and free of charge (i.e. owners renounce their options, if indeed such exist, to limit access to the standard at a later date, for example, by committing themselves to openness during the remainder of a possible patent's life)
  • An open standard is accessible free of charge and documented in all its details (i.e. all aspects of the standard are transparent and documented, and both access to and use of the documentation is free)

French law definition

The French Parliament approved a definition of "open standard" in its "Law for Confidence in the Digital Economy."[18] The definition is:[19]

  • By open standard is understood any communication, interconnection or interchange protocol, and any interoperable data format whose specifications are public and without any restriction in their access or implementation.

Indian Government Definition

A clear Royalty Free stance and far reaching requirements case is the one for India's Government [20]

4.1 Mandatory Characteristics An Identified Standard will qualify as an “Open Standard”, if it meets the following criteria:

  • 4.1.1 Specification document of the Identified Standard shall be available with or without a nominal fee.
  • 4.1.2 The Patent claims necessary to implement the Identified Standard shall be made available on a Royalty-Free basis for the lifetime of the Standard.
  • 4.1.3 Identified Standard shall be adopted and maintained by a not-for-profit organization, wherein all stakeholders can opt to participate in a transparent, collaborative and consensual manner.
  • 4.1.4 Identified Standard shall be recursively open as far as possible.
  • 4.1.5 Identified Standard shall have technology-neutral specification.
  • 4.1.6 Identified Standard shall be capable of localization support, where applicable, for all Indian official Languages for all applicable domains.

Italian Law definition

Italy has a general rule for the entire public sector dealing with Open Standards, although concentrating on data formats, in Art. 68 of the Code of the Digital Administration (Codice dell'Amministrazione Digitale)[21]

[applications must] allow representation of data under different formats, at least one being an open data format.


[it is defined] an open data format, a data format which is made public, is thoroughly documented and neutral with regard to the technological tools needed to peruse the same data.

Spanish law definition

A Law passed by the Spanish Parliament [22] requires that all electronic services provided by the Spanish public administration must be based on open standards. It defines an open standard as royalty free, according to the following definition:[19]

An open standard fulfills the following conditions:

  • it is public, and its use is available on a free [gratis] basis, or at a cost that does not imply a difficulty for the user.
  • its use is not subject to the payment of any intellectual [copyright] or industrial [patents and trademarks] property right.

Venezuelan law definition

The Venezuelan Government approved a "free software and open standards law."[23] The decree includes the requirement that the Venezuelan public sector must use free software based on open standards, and includes a definition of open standard:[19]

Article 2: for the purposes of this Decree, it shall be understood as

k) Open standards: technical specifications, published and controlled by an organization in charge of their development, that have been accepted by the industry, available to everybody for their implementation in free software or other [type of software], promoting competitivity, interoperability and flexibility.

South African Government definition

The South African Government approved a definition in the "Minimum Interoperability Operating Standards Handbook" (MIOS).[24]

For the purposes of the MIOS, a standard shall be considered open if it meets all of these criteria. There are standards which we are obliged to adopt for pragmatic reasons which do not necessarily fully conform to being open in all respects. In such cases, where an open standard does not yet exist, the degree of openness will be taken into account when selecting an appropriate standard:

  1. it should be maintained by a non-commercial organization
  2. participation in the ongoing development work is based on decision making processes that are open to all interested parties.
  3. open access: all may access committee documents, drafts and completed standards free of cost or for a negligible fee.
  4. It must be possible for everyone to copy, distribute and use the standard free of cost.
  5. The intellectual rights required to implement the standard (e.g.essential patent claims) are irrevocably available, without any royalties attached.
  6. There are no reservations regarding reuse of the standard.
  7. There are multiple implementations of the standard.

New Zealand official interoperability framework definition

The E-Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF) [25] defines open standard as royalty free according to the following text:

While a universally agreed definition of "open standards" is unlikely to be resolved in the near future, the e-GIF accepts that a definition of “open standards” needs to recognise a continuum that ranges from closed to open, and encompasses varying degrees of "openness." To guide readers in this respect, the e-GIF endorses "open standards" that exhibit the following properties:

  • Be accessible to everyone free of charge: no discrimination between users, and no payment or other considerations should be required as a condition to use the standard.
  • Remain accessible to everyone free of charge: owners should renounce their options, if any, to limit access to the standard at a later date.
  • Be documented in all its details: all aspects of the standard should be transparent and documented, and both access to and use of the documentation should be free.

The e-GIF performs the same function in e-government as the Road Code does on the highways. Driving would be excessively costly, inefficient, and ineffective if road rules had to be agreed each time one vehicle encountered another.

Bruce Perens' definition

One of the most popular definitions of the term "open standard," as measured by Google ranking, is the one developed by Bruce Perens.[26] His definition lists a set of principles that he believes must be met by an open standard:

  1. Availability: Open Standards are available for all to read and implement.
  2. Maximize End-User Choice: Open Standards create a fair, competitive market for implementations of the standard. They do not lock the customer into a particular vendor or group.
  3. No Royalty: Open Standards are free for all to implement, with no royalty or fee. Certification of compliance by the standards organization may involve a fee.
  4. No Discrimination: Open Standards and the organizations that administer them do not favor one implementor over another for any reason other than the technical standards compliance of a vendor’s implementation. Certification organizations must provide a path for low and zero-cost implementations to be validated, but may also provide enhanced certification services.
  5. Extension or Subset: Implementations of Open Standards may be extended, or offered in subset form. However, certification organizations may decline to certify subset implementations, and may place requirements upon extensions (see Predatory Practices).
  6. Predatory Practices: Open Standards may employ license terms that protect against subversion of the standard by embrace-and-extend tactics. The licenses attached to the standard may require the publication of reference information for extensions, and a license for all others to create, distribute, and sell software that is compatible with the extensions. An Open Standard may not otherwise prohibit extensions.

Microsoft's definition

Vijay Kapoor, national technology officer, Microsoft, defines what open standards are as follows:[27]

Let's look at what an open standard means: 'open' refers to it being royalty-free, while 'standard' means a technology approved by formalized committees that are open to participation by all interested parties and operate on a consensus basis. An open standard is publicly available, and developed, approved and maintained via a collaborative and consensus driven process.

Overall, Microsoft's relationship to open standards was, at best, mixed. While Microsoft participated in the most significant standard-setting organizations that establish open standards, it was often seen as oppositional to their adoption.[28]

Open Source Initiative's definition

The Open Source Initiative defines the requirements and criteria for open standards as follows:[29]

The Requirement

An "open standard" must not prohibit conforming implementations in open source software.

The Criteria

To comply with the Open Standards Requirement, an "open standard" must satisfy the following criteria. If an "open standard" does not meet these criteria, it will be discriminating against open source developers.

  1. No Intentional Secrets: The standard MUST NOT withhold any detail necessary for interoperable implementation. As flaws are inevitable, the standard MUST define a process for fixing flaws identified during implementation and interoperability testing and to incorporate said changes into a revised version or superseding version of the standard to be released under terms that do not violate the OSR.
  2. Availability: The standard MUST be freely and publicly available (e.g., from a stable web site) under royalty-free terms at reasonable and non-discriminatory cost.
  3. Patents: All patents essential to implementation of the standard MUST:
    • be licensed under royalty-free terms for unrestricted use, or
    • be covered by a promise of non-assertion when practiced by open source software
  4. No Agreements: There MUST NOT be any requirement for execution of a license agreement, NDA, grant, click-through, or any other form of paperwork to deploy conforming implementations of the standard.
  5. No OSR-Incompatible Dependencies: Implementation of the standard MUST NOT require any other technology that fails to meet the criteria of this Requirement.

Ken Krechmer's definition

Ken Krechmer[30] identifies ten "rights":

  1. Open Meeting
  2. Consensus
  3. Due Process
  4. Open IPR
  5. One World
  6. Open Change
  7. Open Documents
  8. Open Interface
  9. Open Use
  10. On-going Support

World Wide Web Consortium's definition

As an important provider of Web technology ICT Standards, notably XML, http, HTML, CSS and WAI, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) follows a process that promotes the development of high-quality standards.[31]

Looking at the end result, the spec alone, up for adoption, is not enough. The participative/inclusive process leading to a particular design, and the supporting resources available with it should be accounted when we talk about Open Standards:

  • transparency (due process is public, and all technical discussions, meeting minutes, are archived and referencable in decision making)
  • relevance (new standardization is started upon due analysis of the market needs, including requirements phase, e.g. accessibility, multi-linguism)
  • openness (anybody can participate, and everybody does: industry, individual, public, government bodies, academia, on a worldwide scale)
  • impartiality and consensus (guaranteed fairness by the process and the neutral hosting of the W3C organization, with equal weight for each participant)
  • availability (free access to the standard text, both during development, at final stage, and for translations, and assurance that core Web and Internet technologies can be implemented Royalty-Free)
  • maintenance (ongoing process for testing, errata, revision, permanent access, validation, etc.)

In August 2012, the W3C combined with the IETF and IEEE to launch OpenStand [13] and to publish The Modern Paradigm for Standards. This captures "the effective and efficient standardization processes that have made the Internet and Web the premiere platforms for innovation and borderless commerce".

Digital Standards Organization definition

The Digital Standards Organization (DIGISTAN) states that "an open standard must be aimed at creating unrestricted competition between vendors and unrestricted choice for users."[32] Its brief definition of "open standard" (or "free and open standard") is "a published specification that is immune to vendor capture at all stages in its life-cycle." Its more complete definition as follows:

  • "The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organization, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties.
  • The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute, and use it freely.
  • The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
  • There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.

A key defining property is that an open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to improve upon, trust, and extend an open standard over time."[33]

This definition is based on the EU's EIF v1 definition of "open standard," but with changes to address what it terms as "vendor capture." They believe that "Many groups and individuals have provided definitions for 'open standard' that reflect their economic interests in the standards process. We see that the fundamental conflict is between vendors who seek to capture markets and raise costs, and the market at large, which seeks freedom and lower costs... Vendors work hard to turn open standards into franchise standards. They work to change the statutory language so they can cloak franchise standards in the sheep's clothing of 'open standard.' A robust definition of "free and open standard" must thus take into account the direct economic conflict between vendors and the market at large."[32]

Free Software Foundation Europe's definition

The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) uses a definition which is based on the European Interoperability Framework v.1, and was extended after consultation with industry and community stakeholders. FSFE's standard has been adopted by groups such as the SELF EU Project, the 2008 Geneva Declaration on Standards and the Future of the Internet, and international Document Freedom Day teams.

According to this definition an Open Standard is a format or protocol that is:

  1. Subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally available to all parties;
  2. Without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;
  3. Free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any business model;
  4. Managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;
  5. Available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.

FFII's definition

The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure's definition is said to coincide with the definition issued in the European Interoperability Framework released in 2004.

A specification that is public, the standard is inclusive and it has been developed and is maintained in an open standardization process, everybody can implement it without any restriction, neither payment, to license the IPR (granted to everybody for free and without any condition). This is the minimum license terms asked by standardization bodies as W3C. Of course, all the other bodies accept open standards. But specification itself could cost a fair amount of money (ie. 100-400Eur per copy as in ISO because copyright and publication of the document itself).

UK government definition

The UK government's definition of open standards applies to software interoperability, data and document formats. The criteria for open standards are published in the “Open Standards Principles” policy paper and are as follows.

  1. Collaboration - the standard is maintained through a collaborative decision-making process that is consensus based and independent of any individual supplier. Involvement in the development and maintenance of the standard is accessible to all interested parties.
  2. Transparency - the decision-making process is transparent, and a publicly accessible review by subject matter experts is part of the process.
  3. Due process - the standard is adopted by a specification or standardisation organisation, or a forum or consortium with a feedback and ratification process to ensure quality.
  4. Fair access - the standard is published, thoroughly documented and publicly available at zero or low cost. Zero cost is preferred but this should be considered on a case by case basis as part of the selection process. Cost should not be prohibitive or likely to cause a barrier to a level playing field.
  5. Market support - other than in the context of creating innovative solutions, the standard is mature, supported by the market and demonstrates platform, application and vendor independence.
  6. Rights - rights essential to implementation of the standard, and for interfacing with other implementations which have adopted that same standard, are licensed on a royalty free basis that is compatible with both open source and proprietary licensed solutions. These rights should be irrevocable unless there is a breach of licence conditions.

Comparison of definitions

Publisher Time of pub­lication Availa­bility Usage rights Process Complete­ness
The spec­ification must be redistri­butable free of charge The spec­ification must be redistri­butable under FRAND terms Essential patents must be made ir­revocably available royalty free Essential patents must be licensable under FRAND terms Further develop­ment must be open for anyone to par­tic­i­pate in Further develop­ment must be open for anyone to view Techno­logically mature standards must be imple­mented by
multiple vendors or an open reference implemen­tation
Joint IEEE, ISOC, W3C, IETF, IAB 2012-08-12 No No No Red herring No No No
ITU-T 2005-03 No No No Yes No No No
Pan-European eGovernment 2004 No Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A No
Danish government 2004 No No Unclear N/A No No No
French law 2004 Implied N/A Implied N/A No No No
Indian government 2014 No No Yes N/A No No No
Italian law 2005-03-07 No No No No No No No
Spanish law 2007-06-22 No No Yes N/A No No No
Venezuelan law 2004-12-23 No No Implied N/A No No No
South African government 2007 Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes
New Zealand e-GIF 2007-06-22 No No Unclear N/A No No No
Bruce Perens ? No No Yes N/A No No No
Microsoft ? No No Yes N/A Yes N/A No
Open Source Initiative ? Yes N/A Partial No Yes N/A No
W3C 2005-09 No No Yes N/A Yes N/A No
DIGISTAN ? Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A No
FSFE 2001 No No Implied N/A Yes N/A Yes
FFII ? No No Yes N/A No No No
UK government 2012 No No Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Examples of open standards

Note that because the various definitions of "open standard" differ in their requirements, the standards listed below may not be open by every definition.



DiSEqC is an open standard, no license is required or royalty is to be paid to the rightholder EUTELSAT.
DiSEqC is a trademark of EUTELSAT.
Conditions for use of the trademark and the DiSEqC can be obtained from EUTELSAT.

File formats


Programming languages


Examples of associations


In 2002 and 2003 the controversy about using reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) licensing for the use of patented technology in web standards increased. Bruce Perens, important associations as FSF or FFII and others have argued that the use of patents restricts who can implement a standard to those able or willing to pay for the use of the patented technology. The requirement to pay some small amount per user, is often an insurmountable problem for free/open source software implementations which can be redistributed by anyone. Royalty free (RF) licensing is generally the only possible license for free/open source software implementations. Version 3 of the GNU General Public License includes a section that enjoins anyone who distributes a program released under the GPL from enforcing patents on subsequent users of the software or derivative works.

One result of this controversy was that many governments (including the Danish, French and Spanish governments singly and the EU collectively) specifically affirmed that "open standards" required royalty-free licenses. Some standards organizations, such as the W3C, modified their processes to essentially only permit royalty-free licensing.

Patents for software, formulas and algorithms are currently enforceable in the US but not in the EU. The European Patent Convention Article 52 paragraph (2)(c) expressly prohibits algorithms, business methods and software from being covered by patents. The US has only allowed them since 1989 and there has been growing controversy in recent years as to either the benefit or feasibility.

A standards body and its associated processes cannot force a patent holder to give up its right to charge license fees, especially if the company concerned is not a member of the standards body and unconstrained by any rules that were set during the standards development process. In fact, this element discourages some standards bodies from adopting an "open" approach, fearing that they will lose out if their members are more constrained than non-members. Few bodies will carry out (or require their members to carry out) a full patent search. Ultimately, the only sanctions a standards body can apply on a non-member when patent licensing is demanded is to cancel the standard, try to rework around it, or work to invalidate the patent. Standards bodies such as W3C and OASIS require that the use of required patents be granted under a royalty-free license as a condition for joining the body or a particular working group, and this is generally considered enforceable.

Examples of patent claims brought against standards previously thought to be open include JPEG and the Rambus case over DDR SDRAM. The H.264 video codec is an example of a standards organization producing a standard that has known, non-royalty-free required patents.

Often the scope of the standard itself determines how likely it is that a firm will be able to use a standard as patent-like protection. Richard Langlois argues that standards with a wide scope may offer a firm some level of protection from competitors but it is likely that Schumpeterian creative destruction will ultimately leave the firm open to being "invented around" regardless of the standard a firm may benefit from.[2]


  • EU Commissioner Erkki Liikanen: "Open standards are important to help create interoperable and affordable solutions for everybody. They also promote competition by setting up a technical playing field that is level to all market players. This means lower costs for enterprises and, ultimately, the consumer." (World Standards Day, 14 October 2003) [40]
  • Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Nokia's Board of Directors: "... Open standards and platforms create a foundation for success. They enable interoperability of technologies and encourage innovativeness and healthy competition, which in turn increases consumer choice and opens entirely new markets,"[41]
  • W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee: "The decision to make the Web an open system was necessary for it to be universal. You can't propose that something be a universal space and at the same time keep control of it." [42]
  • In the opening address of The Southern African Telecommunications Networks and Applications Conference (SATNAC) 2005, then Minister of Science and Technology, Mosibudi Mangena stressed need for open standards in ICT:[43]

[...] The tsunami that devastated South Eastern Asian countries and the north-eastern parts of Africa, is perhaps the most graphic, albeit unfortunate, demonstration of the need for global collaboration, and open ICT standards. The incalculable loss of life and damage to property was exacerbated by the fact that responding agencies and non-governmental groups were unable to share information vital to the rescue effort. Each was using different data and document formats. Relief was slowed, and coordination complicated. [...]

— Mosibudi Mangena, Opening address of SATNAC 2005

See also


  1. ^ Chesbrough, Henry William; Vanhaverbeke, Wim; West, Joel (2008). "Tim Simcoe: 'Chapter 8: Open Standards and Intellectual Property Rights' in Open Innovation: Researching A New Paradigm". Oxford University Press. Retrieved April 25, 2017.
  2. ^ a b Langlois, Richard N. "Technological Standards, Innovation, and Essential Facilities: Toward a Schmpeterian Post-Chicago Approach." (1999).
  3. ^ Greenstein, Shane, and Victor Sango, eds. Standards and Public Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  4. ^ Joel West as cited Greenstein, Shane, and Victor Sango, eds. Standards and Public Policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  5. ^ Source:
  6. ^ "ITU-T". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  7. ^ "ITU-T". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  8. ^ "00. ISO standards and patents". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  9. ^ BCP 9: The Internet Standards Process
  10. ^ BCP 78: Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust
  11. ^ BCP 79: Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology
  12. ^ IETF Trust Legal Provisions (page offers a FAQ for non-lawyers)
  13. ^ a b OpenStand: OpenStand: Principles for The Modern Standard Paradigm
  14. ^ European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment Services, Version 1.0 (2004) ISBN 92-894-8389-X page 9
  15. ^ European Communities (2004), European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment Services (PDF), retrieved 2016-02-09
  16. ^ Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, NCOIC Lexicon, 2008
  17. ^ ""Definitions of Open Standards", 2004" (PDF). Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  18. ^ ""Loi nº 2004-575" for the Confidence in the Digital Economy," June 21, 2004". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  19. ^ a b c "Estándares abiertos e interoperabilidad. Foro sobre Estándares Abiertos". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  20. ^ Government of India. "Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance" (PDF). Retrieved 25 July 2014.
  21. ^ "Art. 68 CAD". Retrieved 25 July 2014.
  22. ^ ""Ley 11/2007" of Public Electronic Access of the Citizens to the Public Services, June, 22nd 2007" (PDF). Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  23. ^ "Decreto 3390" of Free Software and Open Standards, December, 23rd 2004
  24. ^ ""Government of South Africa, MIOS Version 4.1 2007"" (PDF). Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  25. ^ ""New Zealand E-Government Interoperability Framework (e-GIF)" version 3.0, June, 22nd 2007" (PDF). Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  26. ^ "Is OpenDocument an Open Standard? Yes!". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  27. ^ "OOXML: To Be, or Not To Be". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  28. ^ Casson, Tony; Ryan, Patrick S. (May 1, 2006), "Open Standards, Open Source Adoption in the public sector, and their relationship to Microsoft's market dominance", in Sherrie Bolin, Standards edge: unifier or divider?, Sheridan Books, p. 87, SSRN 1656616
  29. ^ "Open Standards Requirement for Software - Open Source Initiative". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  30. ^ "The Meaning of Open Standards". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  31. ^ Definition of Open Standards World Wide Web Consortium
  32. ^ a b Defining "Open Standard"
  33. ^ What is an Open Standard?
  34. ^ "Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume One". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  35. ^ "Publicly Available Standards". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  36. ^
  37. ^ Portable Document File (PDF) format specification Archived October 22, 2005, at the Wayback Machine
  38. ^ "ESO and partners launch innovative Data2Dome planetarium system". Retrieved 27 April 2017.
  39. ^ OpenReference Initiative: OpenReference frameworks, December 2016
  40. ^ "European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - World Standards Day, 14 October: Global standards for the Global Information Society". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  41. ^ Nokia Foundation Award to Mårten Mickos
  42. ^ "Frequently asked questions by the Press - Tim BL". Retrieved 18 March 2018.
  43. ^ [1] Archived May 9, 2009, at the Wayback Machine

Further reading

External links

Aventus Protocol

The Aventus Protocol is an open standard event ticketing platform based on blockchain. The software protocol allows the price of tickets to be controlled, a unique identity associated with each ticket and a record of who it was sold to. It is being developed by the UK-based Aventus Protocol Foundation in order to combat counterfeit tickets and uncontrolled resale. The Aventus Protocol is based on Ethereum blockchain technology and its crypto token is the Aventus Token (AVT).

Annika Monari and Alan Vey are the co-founders and directors of the Aventus Protocol Foundation. The project was funded by selling shares in September 2017—it crowdfunded 60000 Ether during both a private pre-sale and a public initial coin offering.The Aventus Protocol will be used for some of the tickets sold for the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia.

Cloud Infrastructure Management Interface

Cloud Infrastructure Management Interface (CIMI) is an open standard API specification for managing cloud infrastructure.

CIMI's goal is to enable users to manage cloud infrastructure in a simple way by standardizing interactions between cloud environments to achieve interoperable cloud infrastructure management between service providers and their consumers and developers.

CIMI 1.1 was registered as an International Standard in August 2014 by the Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC 1) of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).

Comparison of instant messaging protocols

The following is a comparison of instant messaging protocols. It contains basic general information about the protocols.

Extensible Forms Description Language

Extensible Forms Description Language (XFDL) is a high-level computer language that facilitates defining a form as a single, stand-alone object using elements and attributes from the Extensible Markup Language (XML). Technically, it is a class of XML originally specified in a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Note. See Specifications below for links to the current versions of XFDL. XFDL It offers precise control over form layout, permitting replacement of existing business/government forms with electronic documents in a human-readable, open standard.

In addition to precision layout control, XFDL provides multiple page capabilities, step-by-step guided user experiences, and digital signatures. XFDL also provides a syntax for in-line mathematical and conditional expressions and data validation constraints as well as custom items, options, and external code functions. Current versions of XFDL (see Specifications below) are capable of providing these interactive features via open standard markup languages including XForms, XPath, XML Schema and XML Signatures.XFDL not only supports multiple digital signatures, but the signatures can apply to specific sections of a form and prevent changes to signed content.

These advantages to XFDL led large organizations such as the United States Army and Air Force to migrate to XFDL from using forms in other formats. Later, though, the lack of portable software capable of creating XFDL led them to investigate moving away from it. The Army migrated to Adobe fillable PDFs in 2014.


In computing, JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) ( "jay-son", ) is an open-standard file format that uses human-readable text to transmit data objects consisting of attribute–value pairs and array data types (or any other serializable value). It is a very common data format used for asynchronous browser–server communication, including as a replacement for XML in some AJAX-style systems.JSON is a language-independent data format. It was derived from JavaScript, but as of 2017 many programming languages include code to generate and parse JSON-format data. The official Internet media type for JSON is application/json. JSON filenames use the extension .json.

Douglas Crockford originally specified the JSON format in the early 2000s; two competing standards, RFC 8259 and ECMA-404, defined it in 2017. The ECMA standard describes only the allowed syntax, whereas the RFC covers some security and interoperability considerations.A restricted profile of JSON, known as I-JSON (short for "Internet JSON"), seeks to overcome some of the interoperability problems with JSON. It is defined in RFC 7493.

Khronos Group

The Khronos Group, Inc. is an American non-profit member-funded industry consortium based in Beaverton, Oregon, focused on the creation of open standard, royalty-free application programming interfaces (APIs) for authoring and accelerated playback of dynamic media on a wide variety of platforms and devices. Khronos members may contribute to the development of Khronos API specifications, vote at various stages before public deployment, and accelerate delivery of their platforms and applications through early access to specification drafts and conformance tests.

On July 31, 2006, it was announced at SIGGRAPH that control of the OpenGL specification would be passed to the group.


The Matroska Multimedia Container is a free, open-standard container format, a file format that can hold an unlimited number of video, audio, picture, or subtitle tracks in one file. It is a universal format for storing common multimedia content, like movies or TV shows. Matroska is similar in concept to other containers like AVI, MP4, or Advanced Systems Format (ASF), but is entirely open in specification, with implementations consisting mostly of open source software. Matroska file extensions are .MKV for video (which may or may not include subtitles and audio), .MK3D for stereoscopic video, .MKA for audio-only files, and .MKS for subtitles only."Matroska" is derived from matryoshka (Russian: матрёшка [mɐˈtrʲɵʂkə]), which refers to the hollow wooden Russian matryoshka doll which opens to expose another doll that in turn opens to expose another doll, and so on. That may be confusing for Russian speakers, as the Russian word "matroska" (Russian: матроска) actually refers to a sailor suit. The logo uses "Matroška", with the caron over the "s", as the letter š represents the "sh" sound (as in "matryoshka") in Slavic languages.


Mobilinux is a Linux kernel operating system targeted to smartphones. It was announced by MontaVista Software on April 25, 2005.

Mobilinux is based on open source and open standard technology, designed for scalability and maximized battery power usage for single-chip mobile phones. More than 35 million phones and other mobile devices run on Mobilinux, far more than any other commercial Linux.Mobilinux is powered by a version 2.6 Linux kernel, and offers less than one second boot times, and an event broker. It also includes ALSA sound driver support for Embedded systems, standard on the Linux 2.6.21+ kernels. There exists MontaVista DevRocket software (based on Eclipse) as an easy development environment for this platform.


OStatus is an open standard for federated microblogging, allowing users on one website to send and receive status updates with users on another website. The standard describes how a suite of open protocols, including Atom, Activity Streams, WebSub, Salmon, and WebFinger, can be used together, which enables different microblogging server implementations to route status updates between their users back-and-forth, in near real-time.

Oaklands railway line, New South Wales

The Oaklands railway line is a partly closed railway line in New South Wales, Australia. It is a branch of the Main South line at The Rock, and heads in a southwesterly direction through the towns of Boree Creek and Urana to Oaklands. The line opened in 1901 to Lockhart, and in 1912 to Oaklands. Passenger services were withdrawn in 1974, and the line is now closed beyond Boree Creek. Grain haulage is the main traffic on the line. From Oaklands, an open, standard gauge line heads south towards the Victorian border and then to Benalla, Victoria.


OpenEXR is a high dynamic range raster file format, released as an open standard along with a set of software tools created by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), under a free software license similar to the BSD license.It is notable for supporting multiple channels of potentially different pixel sizes, including 64-, 32- and 16-bit floating point values, as well as various compression techniques which include lossless and lossy compression algorithms. It also has arbitrary channels and encodes multiple points of view such as left- and right-camera images.


OpenHMPP (HMPP for Hybrid Multicore Parallel Programming) - programming standard for heterogeneous computing. Based on a set of compiler directives, standard is a programming model designed to handle hardware accelerators without the complexity associated with GPU programming. This approach based on directives has been implemented because they enable a loose relationship between an application code and the use of a hardware accelerator (HWA).

Open Virtualization Format

Open Virtualization Format (OVF) is an open standard for packaging and distributing virtual appliances or, more generally, software to be run in virtual machines.

The standard describes an "open, secure, portable, efficient and extensible format for the packaging and distribution of software to be run in virtual machines". The OVF standard is not tied to any particular hypervisor or instruction set architecture. The unit of packaging and distribution is a so-called OVF Package which may contain one or more virtual systems each of which can be deployed to a virtual machine.

Open format

An open format is a file format for storing digital data, defined by a published specification usually maintained by a standards organization, and which can be used and implemented by anyone. For example, an open format can be implemented by both proprietary and free and open-source software, using the typical software licenses used by each. In contrast to open formats, closed formats are considered trade secrets. Open formats are also called free file formats if they are not encumbered by any copyrights, patents, trademarks or other restrictions (for example, if they are in the public domain) so that anyone may use them at no monetary cost for any desired purpose.

SIMPLE (instant messaging protocol)

SIMPLE, the Session Initiation Protocol for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions, is an instant messaging (IM) and presence protocol suite based on Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) managed by the Internet Engineering Task Force. Contrary to the vast majority of IM and presence protocols used by software deployed today, SIMPLE is an open standard like XMPP.

Simplified molecular-input line-entry system

The simplified molecular-input line-entry system (SMILES) is a specification in form of a line notation for describing the structure of chemical species using short ASCII strings. SMILES strings can be imported by most molecule editors for conversion back into two-dimensional drawings or three-dimensional models of the molecules.

The original SMILES specification was initiated in the 1980s. It has since been modified and extended. In 2007, an open standard called OpenSMILES was developed in the open-source chemistry community. Other linear notations include the Wiswesser line notation (WLN), ROSDAL, and SYBYL Line Notation (SLN).

VME eXtensions for Instrumentation

The VXI bus architecture is an open standard platform for automated test based upon VMEbus. VXI stands for VME eXtensions for Instrumentation, defining additional bus lines for timing and triggering as well as mechanical requirements and standard protocols for configuration, message-based communication, multi-chassis extension, and other features. In 2004, the 2eVME extension was added to the VXI bus specification, giving it a maximum data rate of 160 MB/s.

The basic building block of a VXI system is the mainframe or chassis. This contains up to 13 slots into which various modules (instruments) can be added. The mainframe also contains all the power supply requirements for the rack and the instruments it contains. Instruments in the form of VXI Modules then fit the slots in the rack. VXI bus modules are typically 6U in height (see Eurocard) and C-size (unlike VME bus modules which are more commonly B-size). It is therefore possible to configure a system to meet a particular requirement by selecting the required instruments.

The basic architecture of the instrument system is described in US Patent 4,707,834. This Patent was freely licensed by Tektronix to the VXIbus Consortium. The VXIbus grew from the VME bus specification, it was established in 1987 by Hewlett Packard (now Keysight Technologies), Racal Instruments (now Astronics Test Systems), Colorado Data Systems, Wavetek and Tektronix. VXI is promoted by the VXIbus Consortium, whose sponsor members are currently (in alphabetical order) Astronics Test Systems (formerly Racal Instruments), Bustec, Keysight Technologies, National Instruments, Teradyne, and VTI Instruments (formerly known as VXI Technology)

.ZTEC Instruments is a participating Executive Member. VXI's core market is in Military and Avionics Automatic Test Systems.

The VXIplug&play Alliance specified additional hardware and software interoperability standards, notably the Virtual Instrument Software Architecture or VISA, although the alliance was eventually merged with the IVI Foundation. Application software that supports VXIplug&play instrument drivers for controlling instruments include LabVIEW and MATLAB.


WebP is an image format employing both lossy and lossless compression. It is currently developed by Google, based on technology acquired with the purchase of On2 Technologies.As a derivative of the VP8 video format, it is a sister project to the WebM multimedia container format. WebP-related software is released under a BSD license.The format was first announced on 30 September 2010 as a new open standard for lossy compressed true-color graphics on the web, producing smaller files of comparable image quality to the older JPEG scheme. On October 3, 2011 Google announced WebP support for animation, ICC profile, XMP metadata, and tiling (compositing very large images from maximum 16384×16384 tiles).On 18 November 2011 Google began to experiment with lossless compression and support for transparency (alpha channel) in both lossless and lossy modes; support has been enabled by default in libwebp 0.2.0 (16 August 2012). According to Google's measurements, a conversion from PNG to WebP results in a 45% reduction in file size when starting with PNGs found on the web, and a 28% reduction compared to PNGs that are recompressed with pngcrush and PNGOUT.


X/Open Company, Ltd., originally the Open Group for Unix Systems, was a consortium founded by several European UNIX systems manufacturers in 1984 to identify and promote open standards in the field of information technology. More specifically, the original aim was to define a single specification for operating systems derived from UNIX, to increase the interoperability of applications and reduce the cost of porting software. Its original members were Bull, ICL, Siemens, Olivetti, and Nixdorf—a group sometimes referred to as BISON. Philips and Ericsson joined soon afterwards, at which point the name X/Open was adopted.

The group published its specifications under the name X/Open Portability Guide (or XPG). Issue 1 covered basic operating system interfaces, and was published within a year of the group's formation. Issue 2 followed in 1987, and extended the coverage to include Internationalization, Terminal Interfaces, Inter-Process Communication, and the programming languages C, COBOL, FORTRAN, and Pascal, as well as data access interfaces for SQL and ISAM. In many cases these were profiles of existing international standards.

XPG3 followed in 1988, its primary focus being convergence with the POSIX operating system specifications. This was probably the most widely used and influential deliverable of the X/Open organisation.

By 1990 the group had expanded to 21 members: in addition to the original five, Philips and Nokia from Europe; AT&T Corporation, Digital, Unisys, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, NCR, Sun Microsystems, Prime Computer, Apollo Computer from North America; Fujitsu, Hitachi, and NEC from Japan; plus the Open Software Foundation and Unix International.

X/Open managed the UNIX trademark from 1993 to 1996, when it merged with the Open Software Foundation to form The Open Group.

X/Open was also responsible for the XA protocol for heterogeneous distributed transaction processing, which was released in 1991.

Concepts and
Projects and

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.