<html>
<body>
Ernie,<br>
You ask an excellent question: Why do we (MIT) want another OSI
approved license?<br><br>
It all starts with the NIH. The NIH is requiring that grantees
agree, loosely stated, to release their software via an open source
license. Within MIT and elsewhere, I imagine, there is some
discussion as to the benefits of an OSI approved license to show
compliance with the NIH funding requirements. MIT desires that the
BIPL be OSI approved so that we have a license for NIH funded software
that, without question, meets NIH's requirements. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
Karin<br><br>
At 12:58 PM 7/14/2006, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hi Karin,<br><br>
On Jul 14, 2006, at 9:27 AM, Karin Rivard wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">It would be unfortunate if MIT
could never receive an OSI approved open source license because of this
issue, but I understand that OSI will apply its standards as it sees
fit. MIT can not change its Policy for this one
license.</blockquote><br>
Well, to be precise, MIT already has *one* OSI approved open source
license. :-)<br><br>
<a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php">
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php</a><br><br>
I guess the question is, why do you want another? (yes, I realize
it is different a "you")<br><br>
It sounds to me as if you *like* the fact that the MPL-style licenses
provide i) patent protection and ii) mandatory giveback of modifications,
but you don't want to make similar grants to the community.<br><br>
Whether or not this violates the letter of the OSD, I think the various
posters are correct that this redaction would be *perceived* as
deliberate and suspicious by the community. I realize that your
policy is the legacy of hard-earned experience, but so is our
paranoia! I don't think anyone would be well-served by us
approving a license under such terms, regardless of the
technicalities.<br><br>
Frankly, I think you would be better off with a
"patent-neutral" license, where you dodge the question
entirely. The problem, I presume, is that you want something
like the MPL/IBM licenses which require postbacks. I am not aware
of any such license (except the GPL, of course) which doesn't have
explicit patent statements, but maybe somebody here can suggest
one.<br><br>
-- Ernie P.<br>
MIT '88<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
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. </font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">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.</font></blockquote><br>
Agreed. But solutions take time and policy changes. MIT's
current policy is the result of some past occurrences that were a problem
for us. To change it would mean the possibility of the past problem
reoccurring. The process for change is being looked into, but it
takes time.</blockquote></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>