For approval: MXM Public license

[John Cowan]

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/<B839DF64-1625-11D8-9F2A-000393753936@apache.org> ,
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?