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

[Russ Nelson]

Bruce Perens writes:
 > My view of the OSD, independently from the reading and the intentions of
 > the creator, is that the key point lies with the interpretation of rule #1.
 > 
 > a) If the conditions extend to all patents (but all patents of whom?),

The licensor.  We have no control over third-party patents, so we have
to ignore them.

 > Actually, patent ridden software containing a lot of
 > code originally released under the BSD license is on the shelves,

Innocent until proven guilty.

 > The point is that it is not just the license that makes the software
 > "open source" (or Free Software), but a plethora of rights and technical
 > constraints, as the TiVo issue has exposed quite clearly. The license is
 > a pre-condition, but it is not sufficient.

And the goal is not to merely have freely copyable software, but
instead to have a strong community backing the software, with a
pyramid consisting of a base of strong, supportive users who document
their use, document the code, submit bugs, donate money, etc, a
mid-stage of casual committers, and a peak of committed donors of
code.

So, no, a license is just a pre-condition.

 > As per your suggestion to switch to a strong copyleft license, such as
 > the AGPL v.3, this was my initial suggestion ans I still sort of
 > advocate it. 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.

No, but the copyright holder on the reference code can dual-license it.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
Cloudmade supports http://openstreetmap.org/ 
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241    
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog