[License-review] MXM compared to CC0

[Carlo Piana]

On 02/03/2012 09:02, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 11:22 PM, Carlo Piana wrote:
>> As a submitter of the MXM license, I would be puzzled if CC0 was approved and MXM remained disapproved. Or someone should in case explain which different rationale applies apart from an /ad personam/ one or that the MXM contained at least a limited patent covenant for distribution in source code.
> The MXM license was obviously not OSD-compliant because you cannot discriminate against commercial use of  software and still be "open source".
>
> I think the actual effect of the CC0 license includes a covenant or promise by the Affirmer to not bring action to users of the CC0-licensed work for any reason, including patent rights, trademarks, or anything else.  If that isn't what folks mean to do, then they should find a different license to use than CC0.
>
> Regards,

I don't think you have it right. MXM did not discriminate at all against 
commercial exploitation. It had a patent covenant that you might as well 
have disregarded, for source only distribution. It was entirely agnostic 
versus patents. The covenant was an additional provision, not a part of 
the licensing conditions.  You might say that this is confusing as 
people would believe they have a license to patents, but I believe the 
same can be said for CC0.

In this regard, you might want to explain why you believe that "No 
trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, 
surrendered, *licensed* or otherwise affected by this document." 
[emphasis added] does match with the idea that permission is given to 
use the software under the patent rights of the licensor. Which is 
precisely what MXM said: you don't have the patents of the licensor or 
of the contributors.

So my question still stands, I believe.


Cheers

Carlo