[Fwd: Re: What would work instead of the MXM public license?]
nelson at crynwr.com
Wed Apr 15 14:24:25 UTC 2009
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
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
More information about the License-review