For approval: MXM Public license

[Russ Nelson]

Luis Villa writes:
 > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:43 PM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
 > > Luis Villa scripsit:
 > >
 > >> > Hrm.  I didn't mean that someone was bloviating about the BSD.
 > >> > There's been plenty of that.  I meant that I've never heard of anybody
 > >> > who said "Here is this patent-encumbered code licensed under the BSD
 > >> > license for which I am not granting you a license".
 > >>
 > 
 > Does go directly to the point that there are examples where code has
 > been placed out there where patents are licensed by the code-writing
 > organization, and which are very definitely *not* passed along with
 > the MIT/BSD-style license.

Also hrm.  Seems that I was proposing the wrong test.  If you say
"Here is this patent-encumbered code licensed under the BSD license
for which I am not granting you a license" isn't that acknowledging
that there IS in fact an implicit patent license which they must
disclaim?

Instead, a disproof has to work the way I first proposed: Somebody
gets a patent, writes patented code, distributes it under the BSD, and
then asserts "You have no patent license" and sues them.

-- 
--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