[Equiet]

All standards are ultimately controlled by private companies. Even non-profits require funding.

Open source always depended on a viable business model (of one or many companies) that can sustain not just the release, but also an ongoing maintenance of the standard.

[ModernMech]

The problem with corporate control isn't that they require funding or they are private, the problem is they are motivated first by profit. Sometimes exclusively. So when "what's best" is at odds with "what's profitable", they tend to make the wrong choice.

Take this project for instance. If one day their choice is to forgo all future profits, or to close the source to continue operating, it's very likely they will close the source to continue operating, rather than forgoing profits. We've seen it happen enough to be wary from the project structure alone.

[PostOnce]

Interestingly, even the Warez Scene has standards, and no commercial backing. They're enforced, too.

To see the actual standards, you can search for "standard" on https://defacto2.net/search/file

There's a free book that covers that topic:

https://punctumbooks.com/titles/warez-the-infrastructure-and...

[jrajav]

Not quite a counterexample, since piracy derives all of its value from commercial works, and those who want access to them.

[PostOnce]

But that has nothing to do with the development, maintenance, or enforcement of the standards, since the corporations have no involvement in any of the standards, and are probably opposed to their existence at all.

It's a great counterexample to "corporate money and influence are required to develop, maintain, and enforce standards", because it shows that it sprang up on its own in the absence of money and has persisted for decades.

[Kwpolska]

Which private companies control Jupyter?