For approval: MXM Public license

Russ Nelson nelson at
Fri Apr 10 16:50:53 UTC 2009

Simon Phipps writes:
 > On Apr 10, 2009, at 16:36, Russ Nelson wrote:
 > > If the water were *that* muddy, then someone would have by now used
 > > the BSD on patented software, gained a market, and then pointed to the
 > > patent.  They could defend themselves against a reliance counter-suit
 > > by pointing to the utter lack of a patent license in the BSD text.
 > >
 > > Except ... that nobody has done that because the water isn't very  
 > > muddy.
 > I'd suggest no-one has done it because anyone worth targeting with  
 > that predatory behaviour has been advised BSD-licensed source comes  
 > with no patent licenses and should be treated with extreme caution.  
 > Based on my own experience and advice received, of course.

Yeah, and evolution is just a theory.

Lawyers don't give you business advice.  They give you legal advice.
If you never ignore your lawyers' advice, you're not taking enough
legal risks.

If anybody thought that the BSD *didn't* come with an implicit patent
license, then somebody would have at least *asserted* "You have no
patent license".  And yet nobody has.  Easy to prove me wrong.  All
you need is a single inconvenient fact.

--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