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