For approval: MXM Public license

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

>Carlo wrote:
>> If the answer is "in order to be OSI certified the license should grant
>> -- explicitly or implicitly -- the right to use the patented stuff in
>> it", then the discussion is over because the avoidance of such licensing
>> has been chartered to the license since the beginning

>There is no way to produce a FOSS license that explicitly denies patent
>rights.

Mmmm...not providing patent rights is the same thing in as much as the
result is the same.

The question is whether OSD #1 requires patent grants and if the patent
covenant in 2.1 provides sufficient rights to meet OSD #1 and #7 (I'm thinking 
no). The patent clause itself probably fails OSD #6.

Eh...ultimately an ISO reference implementation will get used with or
without OSI approval as "open source".  I'm not sure what it buys ISO
given that it wouldn't be GPL compatible anyway and not likely to 
even be usable by BSD projects without patent grants anyway.

>If it were true that "it is widely understood that the BSD probably does
>not grant patent rights anyway", there would be no point to Clear BSD!
>Their argument is self-defeating.

I don't know that any aspect of implicit vs. explicit patent rights is 
widely understood by FOSS developers, period.  Therefore it's probably
hard to argue either way what is or isn't widely "understood".

Nigel