Hi all,
this is the latest version that Shane and I were considering.
It contains slight reformulation of a) based on the fact that if we are strict, we might find ourselves excluding ODF:
When being precise we'd have to admit that indeed ODF would be seen more like "structure documented, with reference implementation to fill in the gaps and to test against." So it would fail "fully and publicly documented", but we think it should pass.
So we thought about reformulation. Our best proposal:
a) subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally available to all parties;
which also incorporates part of clause c), which becomes cleaner that way. Comments appreciated.
Regards, Georg
An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is
a) subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally available to all parties;
b) without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;
c) free from legal or technical clauses that could be construed as limiting its utilisation by any party or business model;
d) developed and managed independently of any single vendor in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;
e) available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.