For approval: MXM Public license
rfontana at redhat.com
Wed Apr 8 18:38:58 UTC 2009
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:16:55 -0700
"Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Richard Fontana wrote:
> > Perhaps the OSD ought to be revised to prevent one from calling
> > software "Open Source" if the licensor's grant of rights is
> > contradicted by more or less simultaneous actions by that licensor
> > (using copyright law, patent law, or otherwise).
> What about OSD 7, "Distribution of License":
> The rights attached to the program must apply to all
> to whom the program is redistributed without the need
> for execution of an additional license by those parties.
> I read this as covering the MXM situation, unless under MXM "the
> rights attached to the program" do not include the rights to make and
> distribute free open source copies and derivative works, in which
> case the MXM violates other parts of the OSD. Why should it matter if
> the violation is explicit or implicit?
Possibly. I had overlooked that. I am not sure how to read "the rights
attached to the program".
The OSI's annotated OSD
gives the example of requiring a separate NDA, which seems analogous.
More information about the License-review