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