For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)

Ernest Prabhakar prabhaka at
Fri Jul 14 17:51:40 UTC 2006

On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:43 AM, Karin Rivard wrote:
> As to the patent grants, MIT included the partial protection out of  
> a sense of responsibility to the community and not to game the  
> system.  Though, I definitely understand how and why the approach  
> is viewed as unfair.  MIT can adjust the license to agree with your  
> preference for "patent-neutrality."   MIT does also want post- 
> backs, but we are willing to accept the patent risk of using any  
> such post-backs.

Thanks.  Though, I think John's solution is worth considering:

> If that's what worries you, then add a proviso to the Open Source  
> license
> of your choice stating that its patent permissions do not apply to any
> MIT patents that are exclusively licensed to third parties.  This  
> would
> leave the user no worse off than in the case of any other submarine
> patent that might torpedo an Open Source program.

In other words, make sure you grant *all* the rights you are are  
_able_ to grant, but admit that there are certain rights you no  
longer have the right to grant.

I tend to agree with John, that as long as you (the copyright owner)  
grant the patent rights you have access to, people can live with the  
uncertainty that there may be hidden patents outside your control/ 

-- Ernie P.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list