<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
color:black;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Karen Rivard wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>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>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>That would be an unfortunate solution to a real problem. Going
backwards into history to emulate licenses that ignore patents entirely will
leave the community even more uncertain in today's patent-filled world than
they would be WITH your license. As John Cowan points out, many people hope
that the old BSD- and MIT-style licenses have "implicit patent
licenses," but that's a thin reed from which to build a basket that's to
hold valuable software. All modern, professionally-written open source
licenses, including the proposed new GPLv3, contain explicit patent grants.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>You may not be able to put the genie back in the bottle. You have
announced to everyone here that MIT (probably) has patents that you won't
license with your software, and that the university or others may come after users
if we use your software. If you leave out a patent grant entirely, that will
make not only your license, but your software, very risky. I am aware of no modern,
large open source project that would accept your contributions under such
terms.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I also want to point out that MIT's situation as a large, diverse
institution where no one person knows everything that others are inventing, is
not that unique. IBM, Sun, HP, Apple, etc., are also large institutions, and
they all have dealt with this problem in some fashion. I also note that W3C,
hosted at MIT and with close ties to the inventive community at MIT, has also
solved this problem in its patent policy, not by ignoring patents, but by
committing its members to license patents when necessary to practice industry
standards. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>As Russ Nelson suggested, maybe MIT can make a more valiant attempt to
solve this patent problem, rather than passing it on to users to deal with in
the absence of patent information that only MIT has at its disposal. Other
universities and their technology licensing departments are trying to address
this problem in a more comprehensive way. Perhaps MIT can help us create a
better solution than a license that places risky software into the stream of
commerce.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>/Larry Rosen<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Lawrence Rosen</span></font><font
color=black><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology
law firm (<a href="http://www.rosenlaw.com">www.rosenlaw.com</a>)</span></font><font
color=black><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Stanford University, Lecturer in Law</span></font><font
color=black><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482</span></font><font
color=black><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>707-485-1242 * fax:
707-485-1243</span></font><font color=black><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>Author of "Open Source Licensing:
Software Freedom and </span></font><font color=black><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=black face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black'>
Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Karin Rivard
[mailto:rivard@MIT.EDU] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, July 14, 2006 7:43
AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> license-discuss@opensource.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b> Rory Pheiffer<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: For Approval: Broad
Institute Public License (BIPL)</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>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>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<x-sigsep>
<p></x-sigsep><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>__________________________________________________<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</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>