<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>Karin,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>A couple of comments:</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>1. You're correct that previously approved licenses have done
(or not done) things that MIT is repeating in this license, some of which people
have complained about. Keep in mind that as experience grows people learn
that mistakes have been made and try not to repeat them. I think it's safe
to say that there are some previously approved licenses that would not be
approved if submitted today based on that additional
experience.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>2. Regarding being "used" there is a concern about the license itself
being not being reused by other projects. Many people are concerned
about license proliferation and they want licenses to be reusable to help
minimize license proliferation. Thus, they would prefer to not approve a
license that will be used by a single project.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2>--- David</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=946285114-14072006><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Karin Rivard [mailto:rivard@MIT.EDU]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 14, 2006 10:43 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
license-discuss@opensource.org<BR><B>Cc:</B> Rory Pheiffer<BR><B>Subject:</B>
Re: For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Dear BIPL Discussion Group:<BR><BR>I am writing on behalf of
MIT. It's not clear to me if this is how the process works, but the
group has raised a few issues on which I would like to comment.<BR><BR>It
appears from discussion that there are three concerns raised about the BIPL
license:<BR><BR>1. MIT does not explicitly license MIT-owned patent
rights that might cover the open source software. <BR>2. The license
isn't fair because the BIPL requires "contributors" to license their patent
rights that cover their contributions, while MIT does not do the same.
<BR>3. The license is unlikely to be "used."<BR><BR>Here are my
comments:<BR><BR>1. The requirements for OSI certification do not
include a requirement that the originator of the software offer a license to
originator owned patents. As has been pointed out in the discussion
group, MIT's position on not offering a patent license in the BIPL is
consistent with the GPL, the BSD license, the MIT license, the Educational
Community License, and others.<BR><BR>2. There is a lack of parity in
treatment of the Originator of the code and future contributors to the
code. This is true. MIT will not offer the patent license;
however, the requirement on contributors was an attempt to procure for users
as many "freedom to use" rights as possible. If this disparity in
treatment is so abhorrent to OSI, it is easily remedied. MIT will delete
from the BIPL all references to any patent grants from contributors.
Thus the BIPL will simply be another open source license that is silent on
patent rights.<BR><BR>3. I do not understand the last comment from the
list. The software is what is used. The license is the mechanism
by which the software is used. If no one contributes to the development
of the software because they do not like the license terms, that is ok.
The fact remains that the software remains freely and openly available for use
by the public, which I thought was the goal. Further, "use" or
"usability" is not one of factors that is stated as a requirement for OSI
approval. <BR><BR>General comment: MIT's BIPL license, as
submitted, complies with each and every factor listed on the OSI site for
achieving approval. Nevertheless, if the approval committee demands
parity of treatment among MIT and the contributors, MIT will delete all
references to patent licenses in the BIPL. If this remedy is acceptable
to OSI in order to achieve approval, please let me know and the change will be
made.<BR><BR>Thank you.<BR>Karin Rivard<BR><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></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>