[Fwd: Re: What would work instead of the MXM public license?]

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Wed Apr 15 09:11:00 UTC 2009

> The point is that a strong copyleft license has many
> downsides in the standardization process, because the reference code cannot be put into a proprietary derivative as mandated by the neutrality of the standard making process.
This is why I suggested that you dual-license the reference code.
> The same neutrality that
> would vouch for mandating a zero royalty RAND conditions,
It is reassuring to see that more national declarations, especially in 
Europe, recognize that RF is a necessary component of an Open Standard.

Are you able to further discuss the motivation of the contributors? Do 
they really wish to gain a revenue from use of the patents _as exercised 
to implement the standard_, or do they simply wish to protect their 
ability to charge royalties for other uses of the patents? In the W3C 
patent process that Larry Rosen and I contributed to, there is a patent 
grant only to the extent that the patent is used to implement the 
standard. Other uses of the patent, including in the same software, need 
not be royalty-free.



More information about the License-review mailing list