I think that Martin Lamonica got more things right with this
interview than any one I've ever done, and I especially enjoyed the
fact that he let me blame reporters for abusing "standard" in
place of "specification."
But I do want to correct one thing that I don't think I said exactly the
way he reports it here. I do think it is fair to say that
neither OASIS, W3C, nor WS-I are standards organizations according to the
definition I advanced here. But I don't think it is fair to lump
the W3C in with WS-I on either openness or IP terms, and I'd hate
for people to make that inference. The W3C worked very hard
to put a royalty-free policy in place while OASIS and WS-I have
aggressively resisted one.
And of course, as I pointed out, being a "real"
standards body doesn't imply that you have a reasonable IP policy either
or an acceptable level of openness.