For approval: MXM Public license

Russ Nelson nelson at
Fri Apr 10 15:26:38 UTC 2009

OSI review writes:
 > However, the sad truth is that if we did not offer a patent-agnostic
 > license we would have made all efforts to have an open source reference
 > implementation moot.

That's fair enough.  The world isn't a perfect place, and not
everybody who wants a pony is going to get one.  This license
obviously does not comply with the Open Source Definition's term #7,
Distribution of License.

But I don't mean to discourage you from having an reference
implementation under glass.  You can call it Shared Source, or
Read-Only Source, or I prefer Source-Available Software.  But it's not
Open Source.

 > I have insisted and obtained, however, that an explicit patent covenant
 > be inserted, to the effect to exclude from any patent concern all who
 > don't distribute the compiled version of the software and to those who
 > compile it only for internal purposes without direct commercial
 > exploitation. This covenant being irrevocable, unconditioned and
 > detached from the copyright licensing conditions.

You would get more traction if you gave a patent covenant to everyone
who used an OSI-Approved open-source license.  It *still* wouldn't be
open source, but at least the idea wouldn't be dead on the vine in the
open source community.

--my blog is at
Cloudmade supports 
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241    
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog       

More information about the License-review mailing list