For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
nelson at crynwr.com
Thu Jul 13 04:18:24 UTC 2006
Lawrence Rosen writes:
> If MIT refuses to grant a patent license for its software, then there is a
> possibility that MIT (or its faculty, researchers, graduate students, staff,
> etc.) will later claim royalties for the patents embodied in that software
> from the users of that open source software. Is it your intention to allow
> that? How is this at heart different from the Rambus licensing model?
Maybe Larry understands the solution, but I'm not sure I understand
the problem. If MIT owns a patent, why is there any difficulty with
granting a license to it? If a license for open source users is a
problem, then sooner or later you're going to get a pacifist who will
object to military uses, or a vegetarian who will object to
meat-packing uses. If you think you have problems now, just try
crossing a Quaker.
It seems to me that the problem is that MIT's patent licensing system
is broken, not that there is a problem with the MPL that needs fixing.
--my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com | When immigration is
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | outlawed, only criminals
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | will immigrate. Illegal
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | immigration causes crime.
More information about the License-discuss