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

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Wed Apr 15 15:04:00 UTC 2009

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 

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



More information about the License-review mailing list