What is involved in an "Open Standard" truly being so?

[Luke -Jr]

On Wednesday 31 October 2007, Oren Beck wrote:
> Open Standard.
>
> 2 words that are being abused or distorted..
> Either singly or as a "self qualifying " term.
>
> Open means what it says and says what it means.

Actually, "Open" in "Open Source" is distorted. All it *really* implies is 
that the code is available. It does not imply that you have the legal "right" 
to redistribute it, modified or not. Hence why "Free software" not only 
predates "open source", but is more accurate given the correct definition 
of "free" (which is different from "free of charge", even if the latter is 
incorrectly abbreviated as "free" often).