How does this definition of open standard compare to your view of what makes a standard 'open'?My reply is:
This is a good definition, but a shortcoming is the alternative to RF:In responding I found Glyn Moody and Simon Phipps helpful.
'alternatively, patents may be covered by a non-discriminatory promise of non-assertion'
I'm suspicious of this alternative to RF and do not see the necessity for it. Retaining it would add complexity and confusion where none need exist.
I'm pleased that the definition excludes FRAND. FRAND is incompatible with Open Source software and it would be disastrous if an open standard couldn't be implemented by Open Source software.