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

[Bruce Perens]

Russ Nelson wrote:
>  > 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.
>   
It has to be more than simply the organization granting the license. 
Other organizations are participating, and they are the patent holders 
and controllers of this activity, but they aren't named directly in the 
license.

The fact that they insist that the organization publicize an explicit 
non-grant concerning the patents is sufficient evidence of that.

    Thanks

    Bruce