ConsortiumInfo.org

Authored by: Andy Updegrove on Sunday, July 06 2008 @ 07:05 AM PDT

Rick,

Unfortunately it's far easier to start a dialogue on this topic than it is to reach a valuable endpoint.  I've long been frustrated on how hard it is to achieve consensus on even the high-level concept of  "openness," although the debate has been constant for as long as I can remember - and changing all the while.  To traditional standard setting (non-IT) folks, it's all about process.  To open source folks it's all about IPR.  To consortium folks IPR is the hard part, and process falls into place pretty easily, in that people who opt in work out the process they like and follow it without too much angst that I've ever seen - and in a well-run consortium there's little difference with an SDO.  To SDOs there's more allegiance to RAND and less willingness to go RAND-Z than in consortia, and in many industry verticals the right to charge a royalty is hallowed - that's a major reason to be there at all.

Hence, I'd be inclined to de-emotionalize the issue by dropping the word "open" out of it entirely and try to be more empirical, focusing on practical outcomes and process features rather than on value-associated labels.   Governments could then pick what they cared about from a list that might include the following, for starters, and call that "open" for their purposes.  And attributes like these would be easy to confirm, making certification a simple process.  Hopefully, market forces would take it from there, given that in many cases there would be more than one SSO that could host an activity, and therefore there would sometimes be competition among them that would lead to making tracks available that would provide these attributes where desired.

For starters, here are two main categories, with examples:

Outcome points (the following would relate to commitments made by process participants, and would not be a guarantee that there were no patents in existence that could be problematic):

-  Standard is free to download

-  Free to implement

-  Able to be implemented in GPL 2 or 3 (or LGPL 2 or 3) software

-  Appropriate test tool available

Process points:

-  All able to participate for a reasonable price

-  Drafts at some point are publicly posted and may be commented on by anyone

-  Ex ante disclosure of licensing terms is required

-  Process is transparent (e.g., no closed meetings, listservs open and archived, minutes are detailed and public)

  -  Andy

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]