For approval: MXM Public license
cowan at ccil.org
Fri Apr 10 17:04:11 UTC 2009
Russ Nelson scripsit:
> 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.
At http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/archive-license/200311.mbox/<B839DF64-1625-11D8-9F2Aemail@example.com> ,
Roy Fielding wrote:
# Several comments are to the effect that the patent license [clause
# in Apache 2.0] cannot be terminated. There is no such restriction
# in the DFSG. Furthermore, the GPL[v2], BSD, and other licenses that
# Debian claims are free have no patent license grant at all, which is
# equivalent to a terminated license. If the proposed 2.0 license is
# non-free, then none of your example licenses are free either.
> Easy to prove me wrong.
It was, indeed. Less than five minutes of googling.
I marvel at the creature: so secret and John Cowan
so sly as he is, to come sporting in the pool cowan at ccil.org
before our very window. Does he think that http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Men sleep without watch all night?
More information about the License-review