<html>
<body>
John,<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">If that's what worries you, then
add a proviso to the Open Source license<br>
of your choice stating that its patent permissions do not apply to
any<br>
MIT patents that are exclusively licensed to third parties. This
would<br>
leave the user no worse off than in the case of any other submarine<br>
patent that might torpedo an Open Source
program.</blockquote></blockquote><br>
To my mind, all this time, I thought this offers little to no benefit,
but if this language is acceptable to OSI, I will run it by our policy
committee. There may be internal concerns that prevent our using
that language, but I will certainly check.<br>
Thank you.<br>
Karin<br><br>
At 01:17 PM 7/14/2006, John Cowan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Karin Rivard scripsit:<br><br>
> MIT has not announced that, on its own, it would pursue users of the
<br>
> open source code in order to enforce patents against users of the
<br>
> open source code. <br><br>
That is, hmmm, most carefully worded. "MIT has not announced
[...] that<br>
it would pursue" is by no means the same as "MIT has announced
[...] that<br>
it would not pursue". The latter, expressed in legally binding
words,<br>
would be an Extremely Good Thing. The former, not so much.<br><br>
> MIT's position is that we have not knowingly filed any patents
that<br>
> cover the use of the software to be implemented under the BIPL.<br>
> However, MIT has over 2000 patents in its portfolio, many of
which<br>
> have been licensed to third parties exclusively. Our
exclusive<br>
> license enables the exclusive licensee to name MIT as a party to
an<br>
> infringement lawsuit as the patent owner--this may only be done
if<br>
> legally necessary in pursuing the infringer and only after
discussion<br>
> (but not permission) from MIT. Because of wonderfully creative
and<br>
> appropriate patent claim interpretations, it is possible that
patents we<br>
> never anticipated covering use of the open source code could, in
fact,<br>
> have claims that cover use of the open source code.<br><br>
If that's what worries you, then add a proviso to the Open Source
license<br>
of your choice stating that its patent permissions do not apply to
any<br>
MIT patents that are exclusively licensed to third parties. This
would<br>
leave the user no worse off than in the case of any other submarine<br>
patent that might torpedo an Open Source program.<br><br>
-- <br>
John Cowan
<a href="http://ccil.org/~cowan " eudora="autourl">http://ccil.org/~cowan
</a> cowan@ccil.org<br>
The Penguin shall hunt and devour all that is crufty, gnarly and<br>
bogacious; all code which wriggles like spaghetti, or is infested
with<br>
blighting creatures, or is bound by grave and perilous Licences shall
it<br>
capture. And in capturing shall it replicate, and in replicating
shall<br>
it document, and in documentation shall it bring freedom, serenity
and<br>
most cool froodiness to the earth and all who code therein.
--Gospel of Tux</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=2>__________________________________________________<br>
Karin K. Rivard, Asst. Director and Counsel<br>
MIT Technology Licensing Office, Room NE25-230<br>
Five Cambridge Center, Kendall Square<br>
Cambridge, MA 02142<br>
Phone: (617) 253-6966; Fax: (617) 258-6790<br>
Email: rivard@mit.edu<br>
</font></body>
</html>