For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
btilly at gmail.com
Thu Jul 13 16:49:35 UTC 2006
On 7/13/06, Matthew Seth Flaschen <superm40 at comcast.net> wrote:
> Russ Nelson wrote:
> > Lawrence Rosen writes:
> > 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.
> They provided an answer to this, though I don't think it's quite
> satisfactory either. They are concerend that they might accidently
> include a patented algorithm in open-source code. As you say, they
> could normally remedy this by licensing all relevant patents in the
> open-source license. However, they fear that they may have agreed to an
> *exclusive* license for one of these patents, without knowing it.
As Russ said, the problem is that MIT's patent licensing system is
broken. I fully understand why it is broken. That it is broken seems
like an inevitable consequence of our patent system and how actively
MIT pursues patents.
But I have no sympathy for them. There is a very easy solution, and
it isn't my fault that MIT doesn't want to consider it.
More information about the License-discuss