The only open standard is one that has an openly accessible model or example of the standard itself. Just as a mathematical formula in physics is meaningless without example problems and solutions, a standard based on a proprietary object is also meaningless without code solutions which justify its worthiness --and the code answer book to this open standard should not be subject to ransom through the use of "licensing" fees and anticompetitive product controls.
Such a standard must also be equally accessible to those developing proprietary and nonproprietary works. This not only mitigates the inherent competitive disadvantage for the small innovator, but is also a disincentive to the development of proprietary "copycat" standards alongside the open standard, in an attempt to undermine its use.
In similar fashion, the true goal of the GPL is "free software", not "open source". Any attempt to reserve rights is seen as a prelude to making it no longer free, or making a sham of its free aspect. Which explains the conflict between "open source" and "free software" - the fear of "open source", like "open standards", being subvertable.
Ironically, anything can be subverted. The point of doing open source or free software is to retain attribution - you do it for the fame of having done it. What if someone wishes to erase even that? Then, they could attempt to make similar software, and not attribute the indirectly derived work, attempting the "sin of omission"? Many in the press have remarked on this as a historical injustice.