For the Web specs and code we rejected the GPL and made both public
domain. Getting Microsoft and IBM to build the Web into
their products
was a big priority. That could not have happened if the original
reference code had been encumbered.
Since when are talking about reference code, here? This is about a
*patent* license and making it GPL compatible (as well as BSD,
proprietary or whatever) is, in fact, important.
Exactly, but the point I am making is that a license that is
GPL compatible could fall well short of what we need.
It must be possible to distribute code under GPL, BSD or closed
proprietary licenses. A GPL grant would only allow one of those.
I care not, as I doubt anyone on this list does, how Microsoft or
anyone else chooses to license its *code*. What matters is that any
patents are licensed in such a way as to make it GPL, BSD, proprietary
license.
Exactly.