WebM license third-party submission

[Bruce Perens]

Chris DiBona wrote:
> Wait, I thought you guys had fixed it. Obviously I'm confused.
I am not one of "you guys" in this case. My participation on the OSI 
board preceded its incorporation or its opening of a bank account. They 
say they fixed it, and the reasons given parallel the SPI Branden 
incident (and Branden's a great guy, just too busy to be a volunteer 
treasurer) so case closed as far as I'm concerned.
> We're not really looking to form an advisory board at this time. I'm 
> sorry you had a bad experience with Adsense 5+ years ago. I didn't see 
> it  as horrible to help out there, though.
That of course is just my example. I don't want to start a _detailed_ 
discussion of how Google is closed about processes that effect half of 
the world's net users, or we would never get back to license consideration.

IMO, your choice is simple. Pick an existing approved license with an 
explicit patent grant. There are a number that are limited to the art as 
practiced in the initial contribution. This allows derivative works 
without giving away more than Google might be prepared to give.

    Thanks

    Bruce