An objective definition of open standards

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2004.12.003Get rights and content

Abstract

There is much debate among IT executives and policy-makers as to whether Open Standards, Open Source, and/or something else, are necessary and sufficient to ensure that their software procurements add long-term value to their IT systems. However, a lack of definition of Open Standards makes debate on their meaning, let alone their merits, challenging. This lack of objective definition provides a convenient loophole for vendors to make claims which sound good in theory while protecting bad practices. Given the size of the world-wide software market, and the significant investment that it therefore represents, it is time to define what the software industry (vendors, customers, and users) all claim to want: Open Standards.

This paper defines the lower limit of what can be called an Open Standard and then defines a framework for grading Open Standards that exceed that minimum. This framework is then extended to the subject of file formats.

This paper does not take the position that Open Source is intrinsically good, nor that Open Source in and of itself is a de facto Open Standard. But it does evaluate the role that Open Source can play to make a good Open Standard better, and argues forcefully that Open Standards without Open Source implementations offer little protection from vendor lock-in.

Section snippets

The need for Open Standards in commerce

When customers procure systems, they want the best value for the money. They want systems that work when delivered, that work robustly over time, that can be updated as needed, and that work well with other systems.1 Customers do not want to be locked into a single vendor (who can then raise rates, reduce service arbitrarily, or otherwise act strategically), nor do they want products that tilt against or are insensitive to the benefits of

Open? Standard?

It is hard to argue against Open Standards, but it is even more difficult to agree on what the term actually means. Are they vendor-neutral? Interoperable? Published? Can they be implemented royalty-free? All of the above? Not necessarily any of the above? If the term “Open Standard” is to be used in any IT policy document, it had better both be clearly defined and substantially useful as defined. And because the term Open Standard is now being considered in some contexts alongside Open Source

Defining Open Standards

The term Open Standard may have been poorly or loosely defined in the past, but it may be more productive to rehabilitate the term than to try to find a new one (OMB Circular A-119 appears to define “Voluntary, Consensus Standard” as an alternative, but as Appendix 1 explains, the circular definition leads nowhere). Taking on that challenge, we propose distinguishing four levels of Open Standards:

  • Open Standard 0: The standard is documented and can be completely implemented, used, and

Rationale

Open Standard Principle 0 encapsulates the factors that ensure integrity through transparency, independent participation, and due process. Moreover, such a standard must be technology and platform neutral or else the requirement of complete implementation cannot be met. Indeed, although it falls short of the definition demanded by Eric Raymond (an open source implementation is not a requirement), or what Bruce Perens suggests in his Open Standards Principles,10

Open file formats

While there is tremendous macro-economic benefit for the industry to broadly adopt Open Standards13 (a shift greatly facilitated by the availability and adoption of open source implementations of these standards) this discussion would be incomplete without a discussion of file formats, and in particular the notion of Open File Formats. While file formats are governed by standards (either open or proprietary, explicit or implicit), file formats represent

Freedom by any other name still needs protection

If we are going to nominate Open Standards as a measure of quality in making procurement decisions, we should do so knowing

  • 1.

    there are strong economic incentives for subverting these standards;

  • 2.

    while rivalrous vendors suffer large penalties and large risks when they try to subvert Open Standards, that is not in and of itself a sufficient deterrent from behaving irrationally;

  • 3.

    dominant vendors suffer little penalty and little risk in subverting Open Standards while enjoying considerable upside.

Legislative implications

As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in 1835, the principal feature of a democratic government is that the People do not serve the State, but that the State serves the People. In 2001 Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez, a congressman from Perú, began working on Bill Number 1609, also known as “Free Software in Public Administration.”16 Dr. Villanueva's justification for writing such a bill is as revolutionary as the

Acknowledgments

This paper benefited enormously from the review, comments, and criticisms of the following people: Alan Cox, David A. Wheeler, L. Jean Camp, Eric Raymond, Andrew Updegrove, Will A. Rodger. This paper drew enormous inspiration from Tim O'Reilly and Richard Stallman's discussion of “Freedom Zero.” Thanks to the Honorable Bruce Mehlman for pointing me to the origins of NIST and its enabling role in modern commerce. Thanks also to Tim Berners-Lee for catalyzing the World Wide Web, not only the most

Michael Tiemann is a true open source software pioneer. He made his first major open source contribution over a decade ago by writing the GNU C++ compiler, the first native-code C++ compiler and debugger. His early work led to the creation of leading open source technologies and the first open source business model.

In 1989, Tiemann's technical expertise and entrepreneurial spirit led him to co-found Cygnus, Tiemann contributed in a number of roles from President to hacker, helping lead the

References (0)

Cited by (6)

Michael Tiemann is a true open source software pioneer. He made his first major open source contribution over a decade ago by writing the GNU C++ compiler, the first native-code C++ compiler and debugger. His early work led to the creation of leading open source technologies and the first open source business model.

In 1989, Tiemann's technical expertise and entrepreneurial spirit led him to co-found Cygnus, Tiemann contributed in a number of roles from President to hacker, helping lead the company from fledging start-up to an admired open source leader.

Tiemann serves on a number of boards, including the Open Source Initiative and the GNOME Foundation. Tiemann also provides financial support to organisations that further the goals of software and programmer freedom, including the Free Software Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

View full text