For Approval: Educational Community License 1.0
matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Thu Apr 19 12:44:29 UTC 2007
Christopher D. Coppola wrote:
>> http://weblogo.berkeley.edu/LICENSE, etc.). So it's difficult for me to
>> agree you can't make broad patent grants when it seems you already are.
> Is it generally agreed that a license like the MIT license implictly
> grants a patent license as you describe was pointed out? I'm not a
> lawyer, but in all my discussions with lawyers and others on this topic
> that's the first time I've heard that.
I'm not a lawyer either, but that is what they've been telling me. :)
For instance, Lawrence Rosen (who is on this list) has argued that. See
> One of the reasons we're wanting
> to improve our license is to make explicit patent grants.
That's a good idea. However, you don't want to move backwards. I just
noticed that ECL 1.0 has "use" too. So arguably, you've licensed any
such patents already.
> MIT and Berkeley have been very involved in these discussions. They are key
> contributors to our projects and I'm assuming, based on many
> conversations with them, that they did not believe (or understand) that
> their use of the MIT license implicitly does what you're suggesting.
That's what I figured. The MIT attorney did somewhat object to the idea
that the MIT license had a patent grant, but not too convincingly.
> One other thing about these projects. They are somewhat unique in that
> an institution's participation in the projects and the commitment of
> resources (people and dollars) to the projects comes from institutional
> leadership that may be looking more closely at these kind of issues than
> previous involvement in open source that may have emerged bottom-up.
I understand that. But perhaps they could take a lesson from these
bottom-up projects, and the fact that exclusive patent deals haven't
seemed to suffer.
More information about the License-discuss