- <p><a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">The
-Digistan definition</a> of a free and open standard reads like this:</p>
-
-<blockquote>
-
-<p>The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
-as follows:</p>
-
-<ol>
-
-<li>A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
-in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
-freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.</li>
-
-<li>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
-organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
-open decision-making procedure available to all interested
-parties.</li>
-
-<li>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.</li>
-
-<li>The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
-irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.</li>
-
-<li>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.</li>
-
-</ol>
-
-<p>The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
-measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
-products based on the standard.</p>
-</blockquote>
-
-<p>For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
-and open standard according to this definition. Here is a short
-writeup of what I have been able to gather so far. I brought up the
-topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
-<a href="http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001632.html">in
-July 2009</a>, for those that want to see some background information.
-According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
-the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.</p>
-
-<p><strong>Free from vendor capture?</strong></p>
-
-<p>As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
-Ogg Theora specification. It can be argued that the
-<a href="http://www.xiph.org/">Xiph foundation</A> is such vendor, but
-given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
-making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
-obvious that this is a real risk. One issue with the Xiph
-foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
-control the foundation) are not easily available on the web. I've
-been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
-seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
-where is is spent in the foundation. It is thus not obvious for an
-external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
-it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
-specification. But it seem unlikely.</p>
-
-<p><strong>Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?</strong></p>
-
-<p>Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
-claim it to be, this point is fulfilled. If Xiph foundation is
-controlled by a single vendor, it isn't, but I have not found any
-documentation indicating this.</p>
-
-<p>According to
-<a href="http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf">a report</a>
-prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
-government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
-the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
-Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
-report is correct.</p>
-
-<p><strong>Specification freely available?</strong></p>
-
-<p>The specification for the <a href="http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/">Ogg
-container format</a> and both the
-<a href="http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/">Vorbis</a> and
-<a href="http://theora.org/doc/">Theora</a> codeces are available on
-the web. This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
-
-<blockquote>
-
-Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
-specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
-capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
-the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
-specification compliance.
-
-</blockquote>
-
-<p>The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
-<a href="http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt">RFC 3533</a>, and
-this is the term:<p>
-
-<blockquote>
-
-<p>This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
-others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
-or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
-distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
-provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
-included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
-document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
-the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
-Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
-Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
-in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
-translate it into languages other than English.</p>
-
-<p>The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
-revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.</p>
-</blockquote>
-
-<p>All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
-this term seem to be fulfilled. There might be a problem with the
-missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
-thus reuse it in other specifications. Not quite sure if that is a
-requirement for the Digistan definition.</p>
-
-<p><strong>Royalty-free?</strong></p>
-
-<p>There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
-Theora format.
-<a href="http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65782">MPEG-LA</a>
-and
-<a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/30/237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit">Steve
-Jobs</a> in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
-patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
-them. Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
-this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
-without paying any royalties. For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
-Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec
-than any real problem with Ogg Theora.</p>
-
-<p><strong>No constraints on re-use?</strong></p>
-
-<p>I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.</p>
-
-<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
-
-<p>3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2
-depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation. Given the
-background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
-safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
-would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
-this.</p>