<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:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" 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:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{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=blue style='word-wrap: break-word;-khtml-nbsp-mode: space;
-khtml-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Hi Janet,<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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>It is nice hearing from you again, and
thanks for writing to license-discuss with that interesting set of questions.
Of course, we're free to ask questions back.... :-)<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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>For an example of the grant of patent
rights necessary to practice industry standards, see the Microsoft Open
Specification Promise at <a
href="http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx</a>.
There are similar covenants by Sun and IBM and other companies. These are generally
considered compatible with all FOSS licenses.<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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>For an example of the grant of all patent
rights for any open source software (plus experimentation, research and
teaching) see the International Characters Covenant Not To Assert at page 2 of <a
href="http://rosenlaw.com/IC-Business-Model.pdf">http://rosenlaw.com/IC-Business-Model.pdf</a>.
Other companies are considering similar covenants and/or indemnification to
protect their customers from patent infringement claims, but none have yet been
submitted for consideration as compatible with the OSD. <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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>For an example of a patent grant in a free
software license, see section 11 of Draft 2 of GPLv3 at <a
href="http://www.gplv3.fsf.org/">www.gplv3.fsf.org</a>. For examples of patent
grants in open source licenses generally, see almost every license written in
the last ten years. My own personal favorite is the one-sentence patent grant
in section 2 of the Open Software License, OSL 3.0, at <a
href="http://www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0.htm">www.rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0.htm</a>. <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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>I don't think there's much enthusiasm to
come up with yet another way to say these things about patents. <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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Presumably software is involved in
Biological Open Source or we wouldn't be discussing this here at all. Are the covenants
and licenses I highlighted above adequate for any patented technology—presumably
including biotech—that can benefit from implementation in copyrightable
software? What is different or unique about Biological Open Source that
suggests we need something new?<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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Best regards,<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>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=black face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>/Larry<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'> Janet Hope
[mailto:janet.hope@anu.edu.au] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, November 15, 2006
5:58 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> license-discuss@opensource.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: "Biological Open
Source"</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'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>On 15/11/2006, at 11:39 PM, Michael Tiemann wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt' type=cite>
<div style='min-height: 14px'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Janet, I for one welcome your participation.<span
class=apple-converted-space> </span>Moreover, while it is not<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>likely to lead to a specific license approval, it is very much on topic<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>for the expertise this list represents.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div style='min-height: 14px'>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks, Michael, for your positive response. Having received some
private as well as public encouragement and no discouragement, I'll go ahead
and put my question to the list. (It has been suggested that a new list
could be started for non-software open source licensing issues to cut down on
off-topic posts -- I think that would be very helpful.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>This post is long. Most
of it falls under the headings "Background" and "Preliminary
licence analysis". Readers who are interested, but not <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>that</span></i> interested, are encouraged to skip
those parts. </span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>THE LICENCES<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The licensor, CAMBIA, has issued two "Biological Open Source"
("BiOS") licences, one for Plant Enabling Technologies
("PET") and one for Genetic Resources Indexing Technologies
("GRIT"). Each must be read in conjunction with its own
Technology Support Services Subscription Agreement ("PET TSSS" and
"GRIT TSSS"). All of these instruments are currently in version
1.3 and are available at <a href="http://www.bios.net/daisy">http://www.bios.net/daisy</a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Let me say up front that I am not affiliated with CAMBIA and have not
been involved in the process of drafting the BiOS licences. As a matter
of courtesy to the drafters, I am simultaneously posting my comments to
CAMBIA's own discussion forum. However, as Michael suggests, I suspect
that license-discuss is where much of the relevant expertise is to be
found. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>THE QUESTION<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The question is: To what extent is CAMBIA's BiOS licence scheme
"open source" in the software sense? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In other words: If the BiOS licences were software/copyright
licences, would you recommend them for OSI approval? If not, why not?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>SPECIFIC QUERIES<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In particular (see the rest of this post for more detail on each of
these points):<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(1) If a licence is primarily a patent licence and the patent grant
itself purports to be open source (not just compatible with an open source
copyright grant elsewhere in the licence), should field of use restrictions be
permitted? (OSD #6)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(2) What should be regarded as the equivalent of "source
code" in a biotechnology licence? Should it include materials etc in
addition to that which would be required for disclosure under patent law? If
so, on what terms should it be made available to users? Specifically, is it
acceptable to charge a fee that does more than recover the costs for
storage/retrieval/postage of samples etc (OSD #2)? Is it acceptable for the
amount of the fee to depend on the size and type of the user's organisation
(OSD #5) and the length of the user's "subscription" to ongoing
"technology support services"?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(3) What is the nearest patent equivalent of the open source copyright
licence grant to copy, modify, and distribute copies or derivative works (OSD
#1)? Does it depend on the type of patent (eg process or product)?
Is the patent grant in the BiOS licences effectively limited by the exclusion
of "Improvements" from the definition of "BiOS Licensed
Products"?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(4) Is a right to sublicense essential in an open source licence? Is it
acceptable for this right to be limited or absent? If so, what other conditions
should be met to ensure that a licensor cannot impose non-open source
restrictions as a condition of issuing a new licence (eg OSD #7)? How can these
conditions be met in the case of a technology to which the equivalent of a
copyright notice cannot be so easily attached as it can to software code?
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(5) Does the grantback in the BiOS licence go beyond a copyleft-style
provision in restricting users' freedom to fork the innovative process? Is
there any pressing legal or practical reason why the licensor in a
biotechnology/patent context could not simply require licensees to make defined
improvements available on the same terms as the original licence, as in the
software/copyright context?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>BACKGROUND<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>CAMBIA (formerly an acronym for Center for Application of Molecular
Biology in International Agriculture) is a private, not-for-profit research
institute located in Canberra, Australia. Founded in 1994 by its present
CEO Dr Richard Jefferson, CAMBIA is a small organisation that -- atypically --
combines "wet lab" development of biotechnology research tools with
intellectual property informatics and policy development. CAMBIA is
financed by grants from philanthropic organisations including the Rockefeller
Foundation, by national and international research funding bodies, by official
development assistance and by licence revenue from its own patented
technologies.(See <a href="http://www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/589.html">http://www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/589.html</a>.)
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In 2005, CAMBIA launched an initiative called Biological Innovation for
Open Society (BIOS: note the upper case "I"). The BIOS
initiative consists of: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(1) Patent Lens: searchable databases containing EPO, US and PCT patent
documents, together with ancillary IP-related information and tutorials. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(2) BioForge (styled after Sourceforge.net): a portal for
protocol-sharing, comments on patents, and discussion tools in both public and
secure environments; intended to develop into a collaborative technology
development platform. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(3) Biological Open Source (BiOS with a lower case "i") is the
aspect of the BIOS initiative that is "intended to extend the metaphor and
concepts of Open Source to biotechnology and other forms of innovation in
biology". (See CAMBIA BiOS License for Plant Enabling Technology Version
1.3, Recitals, first paragraph.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>A description of the materials and methods that researchers can obtain
from CAMBIA, including an indication of which materials and methods are
available under which BiOS licence, is at <a
href="http://www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/materials.html">http://www.cambia.org/daisy/cambia/materials.html</a>.
These technologies are, of course, quite different from those licensed under
OSI-certified software licences. Plant enabling technologies and genetic
resource indexing technologies consist not of software code (though software
may be one component), but of heterogeneous methods and materials, including
living biological materials. Typically, such technologies are legally
protected by a mixture of intellectual and personal property rights, including patents.
By contrast, I understand that most open source software licences are primarily
copyright licences, though some also contain a limited patent grant.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>As I mentioned in my first post, the fact that the BiOS licences apply
to plant enabling technologies and genetic resources indexing technologies
means that they cannot be certified by the Open Source Initiative as being
"open source" licences because the terms of the official Open Source
Definition are not broad enough to accommodate the legal and technical
differences just described. In consequence, there is no certification signal to
help potential users determine whether or not signing up to a BiOS licence will
actually give them the nearest equivalent to the "software freedom"
guaranteed by the principles of open source software licensing. Clearly,
the task of translating open source licensing principles from one technology
setting to another is one that creates room for both legitimate adaptations and
distortions of the kind that would lead the OSI to refuse to certify the
relevant licence if the technology in question were, in fact, software.
By my preliminary analysis, the BiOS licences contain a mixture of the
two. However, I (and many others) would like to be able to supplement
that analysis with the expert views of people on this list.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Note that I am in no way impugning CAMBIA's good faith or suggesting
that the BiOS licences are "bad". Certainly, CAMBIA has made a
serious effort at a very difficult task. The licences may well be good
licences, and good for innovation. However, the question here is whether
it is reasonable to describe them as "open source".<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>PRELIMINARY LICENCE ANALYSIS (WARNING: MAY CONTAIN ERRORS! TINLA!!)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>For simplicity, I refer here only to the terms of the BiOS Plant Enabling
Technology (PET) agreement. The PET scheme closely resembles the GRIT scheme.
The main difference is that whereas the PET scheme contains a limited
sublicensing right, the GRIT scheme does not contain any right to
sublicense. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>1. Overall scheme of the licence <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The BiOS licensing scheme encapsulated in version 1.3 of the PET
Licence and corresponding TSSS Agreement contemplates an initial contribution
of IP and technology by CAMBIA that may act as a seed for ongoing technology
development. ("IP and Technology" is defined in Licence cl.
1.8.) Thus, the subject of the initial licence grant is a collection of
CAMBIA's own patents, materials and technology data.(See definitions of
"CAMBIA Patents", "CAMBIA Material" and "Technology
Data" in Licence cll.1.9, 1.10 and 1.13 respectively.) Downstream,
this initial subject-matter may be supplemented by "Improvements",
"Improvement Patents" and "Improvement Materials" (Licence
cll 1.6, 1.7 and 1.11 respectively) developed by the licensee,
non-exclusively granted back to CAMBIA under Licence cl. 3 and then
redistributed by CAMBIA to all BiOS licensees as part of the grant of "IP
and Technology".<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>2. Parties<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Although the licence is described on the BIOS forum as a
"template", one party (CAMBIA) is explicitly named throughout the
licence text as the licensor. I understand that this is discouraged in
the OSI approval process because it contributes to licence proliferation;
however, this is a relatively minor point. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The sense in which the
BiOS licences <i><span style='font-style:italic'>are</span></i> templates is
that they contemplate a number of licensees all receiving CAMBIA's permission
to use the IP and Technology on "substantially similar" terms. (See
Licence Recitals, paragraph 3. Why are the terms "substantially
similar" and not identical? Two reasons: (1) different licensees may
agree to different numbered versions of the licence (see Licence cl. 7.5 and
TSSS Agreement cl. 7.6). (2) The terms on which licensees can access any
materials needed to practise the licensed inventions vary according to the type
and size of the licensee organisation (see TSSS Agreement cl. 3 and Annex
D).) </span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>3. Patent grant<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The licence grant is contained in clause 2 of the PET Licence, the key
part of which reads: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"2.1 CAMBIA hereby grants to BiOS LICENSEE under Licensed Patents
in the Field of Agriculture a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free right and
license to make and use the IP & Technology for the purpose of developing,
making, using, and commercializing BiOS Licensed Products without obligation to
CAMBIA...."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The nature of the grant
is crucial to the question whether the BiOS licences can be justifiably
described as "open source". Note that unlike open source
software licences, the BiOS licence is primarily a patent licence. While
patent grants in open source software licences must be compatible with an open
source copyright grant, they are not the primary means by which these licences
seek to protect users' rights to access and use the technology. The
question here is not merely whether the BiOS patent licence grant is
\textit{compatible} with open source principles, but whether it is <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>itself</span></i> "open source" (whatever
that is taken to mean in the biology context).</span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>3a. Grant is restricted to a particular field of use<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The BiOS patent licence grant is limited to a particular field of use,
namely Agriculture. ("Agriculture" is defined quite broadly in
Licence cl. 1.3.) There is a question whether this conflicts with OSD #
6.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>While a strict formal interpretation of open source principles would
presumably prohibit field of use restrictions in open source biotechnology
licences, the difficulty with such an interpretation is that in the patent
context, field of use restrictions, together with territorial restrictions, may
be a useful tool for making technology that would otherwise be bound up in
exclusive licences more readily available for public interest and broader
commercial use. The licensing policy of Public Intellectual Property
Resource for Agriculture (PIPRA), a collective intellectual property management
regime for agricultural biotechnology recently established by a group of land
grant universities in the United States, is a case in point. One of
PIPRA's primary aims is to overcome the fragmentation of public sector
intellectual property ownership by identifying residual rights retained by
members who have assigned unnecessarily broad exclusive rights in important
technologies to major commercial firms. One of the architects of the initiative
explains the importance of field of use and territorial restrictions in this
context: "Best practice includes partitioning of patents: if you go and
license something like your agrobacterium technique, license it just for
cotton; or better, for cotton in the US; or even better... define which varieties,
or... constrain it to varieties owned by the licensee company in the US.
The more you can constrain the space of the technology grant, the more is still
left over [that you may choose] to put into the commons." (Greg Graff,
personal communication.) Thus, the value of such field of use restrictions in
terms of achieving wider access to key biotechnologies may outweigh the value
of keeping to a strict analogy with open source software licensing. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>What do people think about this? I understand that with respect to
patented code, the F/LOSS community objects to field of use restrictions in
software patent licences because such restrictions are perceived as capable of
insidiously undermining freedoms granted in relation to the same code under an
open source copyright licence. However, the approach of open source
community leaders to this situation appears to have been to campaign for
maximum breadth of patent licences, while remaining willing to compromise for
the sake of workability. Thus, many open source licences, including the
Apple, IBM and Mozilla licences, have field of use restrictions in their patent
grants. The W3C Patent Policy also represents a compromise. How far
should this willingness to compromise go in a case where the patent grant is
the main or even the only grant in the licence? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>3b. Scope of grant<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The grant is a "right and licence to make and use the IP and
technology for the purpose of developing, making, using and commercialising
BiOS Licensed Products". Note that the grant does not explicitly
include a right to sell the IP and Technology itself. Nor does it permit
the licensee to make or use the IP and technology for purposes other than
developing, making, using or commercialising BiOS Licensed Products.
"BiOS Licensed Product" is defined in Licence cl.1.4. That
definition is discussed further below, but significantly, it is restricted to
assets that are substantially distinct in some respect from the licensed IP and
technology and are "intended for commercialisation".
"Commercialisation" is not defined in the BiOS licence.
However, in light of recent US case law concerning patent infringement by
universities (eg Madey v Duke), it may be quite broad. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The OS mantra is "anyone, anywhere, for ANY PURPOSE, must be free
to copy, modify AND DISTRIBUTE the software, for free or for a
fee...". At first glance, the BiOS patent grant seems considerably
narrower than this. However, patent law grants a patent owner a different
set of rights to those of a copyright owner. It is therefore not a
straightforward question what the equivalent of the broad open source copyright
licence grant should be in the patent context. It is arguable that an
open source copyright grant covers all of the exclusive rights of the copyright
owner that are relevant to the licensed technology, and that an open source
patent grant should do the same. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>IAAL, but not a patent lawyer. However, I understand that in
Australia at least, the precise form of a broad patent licence grant that would
cover all of the owner's rights-to-exclude would depend on the nature of the
patent claims. Section 15 of the Australian Patents Act 1990 gives the
patent holder the right to exploit the invention. The definition of
"exploit" in Schedule 1 of the Act distinguishes between products and
processes. For products, it includes the right to make, hire, sell or otherwise
dispose of the product. For processes, the definition includes the right to
make, hire, sell or otherwise dispose of products resulting from the process.
Without looking at the claims in CAMBIA's patents, it appears that they are
process patents (ie methods of doing plant enabling technology and genetic
resource indexing technology). The licences grant the right to use the methods.
Any products are supplied separately under the support agreement. The licences
actually grant the right to sell products using the methods under licence.
Thus, the licence grant may be broad enough to satisfy open source principles
with respect to the initial IP and Technology. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>What do you all think about this?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>3c. Limited right to sublicense<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>A final point to note regarding the BiOS licence grant is that it
includes a limited right to sublicense, as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"2.1.1 granting limited sublicenses to third parties... to conduct
research and/or development activities...for BiOS LICENSEE, provided that the
product and/or other results (including all intellectual property rights)
resulting from said limited sublicense are owned exclusively by BiOS LICENSEE,
said limited sublicenses to terminate when such activities cease or such
ownership terminates, and<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"2.1.2 granting limited sublicenses to third parties... for the
sole purpose of commercializing BiOS Licensed Products that embody the IP &
Technology or are generated by use of the IP & Technology, said limited
sublicenses to terminate when said commercialization ceases.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"BiOS LICENSEE shall be responsible to ensure... that any
Improvements produced by sublicensees are considered to be Improvements
hereunder.... BiOS LICENSEE shall provide a list of sublicensees to CAMBIA in
writing at least once a year....<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"BiOS LICENSEE shall further be responsible to ensure that...third
parties to whom a sublicense has been granted are notified... that said third
parties have no right to sublicense absent the execution of a BiOS License
Agreement with CAMBIA, and that CAMBIA may be approached for a BiOS License
Agreement.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>"Other than stipulated under this Article 2.1, no further right to
sublicense is granted to BiOS LICENSEE hereunder."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>I am unclear as to whether a right to sublicense is essential for OSI
certification of new licences. My understanding from Larry Rosen's book
is that the right to sublicense is considered desirable, but is not a feature
of all OSI-approved software licences. I imagine that in the absence of a
sublicensing right, OSD #7 becomes very important because unless people are
sure they are entitled to a licence no matter what, the need to go back to the
initial licensor for permission to use the technology would not be a mere
formality and could become too restrictive. However, it is not clear
exactly how OSD #7 would operate in relation to the exchange of biological
materials, methods etc, as distinct from code or other content to which a
copyright notice can be easily attached.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Can anyone clarify the OSI requirements re sublicensing? (Sorry
if this has been dealt with in previous posts.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>4. Source code<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The freedom to copy and modify open source software programs and to
distribute copies and modifications is only one important aspect of open source
licensing. Another is the practical enablement of that freedom through
unrestricted access to software source code. In the case of patented biotechnologies,
it may be argued that the equivalent of source code is automatically publicly
available because of the disclosure requirement under patent law, and that an
open source-style licence grant is all that is needed to render a patented
technology "open source". On the other hand, biotechnology
licensors typically go beyond this level of disclosure when attempting a
genuine transfer of technology. This practice suggests that patent
disclosure many not be enough to give full practical effect to the legal freedom
to use and improve a technology that is intended to be conferred by an open
source licence grant. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In the BiOS PET licensing scheme, separate provision is in fact made
for access to materials needed to practise the licensed patents. This
access is governed by the terms of the TSSS Agreement (see Licence cl. 4) and
appears to be conditional upon (1) a substantial annual payment for at least
three years, depending on the licensee's organisation type and number of
employees and (2) significant reporting requirements regarding new materials,
technology data and project ideas. If access to materials needed to
practise the licensed payments is regarded as equivalent to access to source
code, these restrictions represent a significant departure from established
open source principles of non-discrimination among licensees, access to source
code for free or at the minimum charge required to recover the provider's
costs, and freedom from ongoing obligations to the licensor, including
obligations that take the form of reporting requirements.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>5. Grantback<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The next phase in the scheme established by the BiOS licences and TSSS
agreements is triggered when a licensee, in the course of exercising the
licence grant, makes or discovers something new. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The BiOS PET licensing scheme distinguishes between "BiOS Licensed
Products", which may be developed, made, used and commercialised
"without obligation to CAMBIA", and "Improvements", which
are subject to a grantback obligation (see below) that also covers
Improvement Patents and Improvement Materials (Licence cll. 1.7 and 1.11,
respectively). The definitions of these different categories of potential
follow-on innovations are complicated and tinged with uncertainty.
However, the fundamental intention appears to be to allow the licensee to
appropriate any new asset that has been generated through use of the IP and
technology and is intended for commercialisation. Such an asset is a
"BiOS Licensed Product" (Licence cl. 1.4), provided it does not fall
within the definition of "Improvement" (Licence cl. 1.6).
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The definition of "Improvement" is thus a critical element of
the BiOS scheme. This definition is potentially extremely broad. Note in
particular that even something as minor as a repeatable observation can constitute
an Improvement, and that an Improvement need not be a Plant Enabling Technology
(itself very broadly defined in Licence cl. 1.12) because of the catch-all
"but for the terms of this License Agreement...". <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>5a. Does the definition of "Improvement" limit the licence
grant itself?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>A preliminary question is
whether the broad definition of "Improvement" in Licence cl. 1.6
effectively limits the scope of the main licence grant in Licence cl. 2.
As noted earlier, the purpose of the grant is limited to "developing,
making, using and commercialising BiOS Licensed Products".
"BiOS Licensed Products" is defined in cl. 1.4 to mean "any
tangible or intangible asset of BiOS LICENSEE (including without limitation any
material or method, but excluding Improvements)". This suggests that
anything that falls within the definition of Improvement automatically falls <i><span
style='font-style:italic'>out</span></i>side the definition of BiOS Licensed
Product and therefore is not covered by the grant even for purposes other than
commercialisation. </span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Similarly, any new development that is neither a BiOS Licensed Product
nor an Improvement does not appear to be covered by the terms of the
licence. In either case, further permissions may be required in order to
avoid infringing the licensor's proprietary rights. CAMBIA appears to be
free to make such permissions conditional upon payment of royalties or other
conventional licensing terms -- or to refuse them altogether.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>5b. Grantback: copyleft equivalent or licensing "club"?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>From an open source perspective, the breadth of the definition of
"Improvements" is not necessarily a problem, although it could be if
it extended the range of follow-on innovations that would be caught by the
grantback well beyond those that would be caught by a copyleft-style provision
relating to "derivative works". As I understand it, the
question of what constitutes an appropriate incentive for licensees to innovate
in a copyleft-style licence is a separate issue from compatibility with open
source principles. The broadest examples of copyleft "hooks" in
open source software licences are tailored to catch all derivative works that
are distributed outside the boundaries of the licensee's own organisation;
other open source licences permit varying degrees of freedom to operate with
derivative works. The BiOS grantback appears to fall somewhere in the middle of
this spectrum. In a 2004 article on open source patent licensing, Sara
Boettiger and Dan Burk point out that copyright confers exclusive rights only
against unauthorised copying or other violations of the specifically enumerated
rights of the copyright owner arising out of contact with the copyrighted work
itself. By contrast, independent creation is not a defense to claims of
patent infringement. The BiOS licence appears designed to replicate the
copyright situation by excluding from the definition of Improvement
improvements that are "developed without the use of the IP and
Technology". Similarly, the BiOS arrangement appears intended to
mirror open source software licences by permitting in-house use of improvements
that are actively protected as trade secrets: these are not caught by the BiOS
grantback. (Note, however, that this escape clause may be somewhat narrower
than the positive requirement in open source software licensing for a
derivative work to be externally deployed before it triggers any copyleft
obligation: clearly, there is a difference between active dissemination of a
technology and merely failing to adequately protect a trade secret.
Further, note that in-house use of an improvement under conditions of trade
secrecy may not be permitted at all under the BiOS scheme unless interpreted as
a form of "commercialisation": see Licence Grant in cl. 2.2 and
definition of BiOS Licensed Product in cl. 1.4.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The point at which the BiOS licence provisions relating to follow-on
innovations appear to me to depart from open source principles is not in the
breadth of what may be caught by the grantback, but in the fact of the
grantback itself. While the copyleft or "reciprocal" obligation
to be found in some open source licences has been characterised in academic
literature as a type of grantback, this does not appear to me to be an accurate
description. A copyleft licence does not establish a tit-for-tat
relationship between the licensor and licensee. Rather, a copyleft
licensor says to the licensee: "Do as you have been done by".
The copyleft obligation is not to the licensor per se -- though he or she may
be responsible for enforcing it -- but to the whole community of potential
users of the follow-on innovation. The licensor may or may not be a
member of this community, depending on the scope of his or her activities and
interests. For this reason, I prefer to describe the copyleft obligation
as a "grantforward" (as in "passing it forward") rather
than a "grantback".<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The BiOS grantback, by contrast, appears to be just that: whether or
not the intention is noble, it still constitutes a type of privilege granted by
the licensee to the licensor in partial consideration of the licence
grant. Under cll. 3 and 4 of the Licence and relevant provisions of the
TSSS Agreement, a BiOS licensee is obliged to grant to CAMBIA a worldwide,
non-exclusive, royalty-free licence (with the right to sublicense to other BiOS
licensees) to Improvement Patents, Improvements, Technology Data, and any
Improvement Material provided by the licensee to CAMBIA and necessary to
practise Improvements. (Definitions are in Licence cll. 1.7, 1.6, 1.13 and 1.11
respectively.) Thus, the form of the BiOS licence differs from a copyleft
open source licence: instead of requiring licensees to license a subset of
follow-on innovations on the same terms as those of the original licence, it
builds the follow-on licence into the original licence and places the initial
IP owner, CAMBIA, at the centre of the network as a kind of gatekeeper. While
CAMBIA does have an obligation to make these follow-on innovations available on
the same terms as the initial licence, that obligation extends only to existing
BiOS licensees. In essence, the arrangement is a licensing
"club". Given the restrictions on sublicensing by BiOS
licensees (Licence cl. 2), new members can join this club only by executing a
new licence with CAMBIA; CAMBIA is under no obligation to grant such a licence.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Club-type licensing arrangements are actually quite familiar in the
biotechnology context. Depending on the circumstances, such an
arrangement may be good for innovation, but it seems to me that it is not open
source. Why? Because an arrangement in which the initial licensor retains
a central position linked to his or her ownership of the seed IP and Technology
is inconsistent with the freedom to fork the innovative process. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>The freedom to create a ‘code fork’ is regarded by some as
a defining characteristic of open source -- recall Eric Raymond's open letter
to Sun a little while back. According to Steve Weber (author of The Success of
Open Source), under the terms of an open source licence, anyone who is dissatisfied
with the conduct of a project leader -- on technical, administrative, political
or even purely personal grounds -- is free to take the collaborative effort in
a new direction. Even though in practice, forking is rare, the ever-present
possibility makes project leaders responsible to their co-developers and
ensures that no individual or group unduly dominates the process of technology
development. At the same time, it ensures that a promising technology need not
be left on the shelf because of waning interest or incapacity on the part of an
initial innovator. This is a concern often expressed on this list in the
form of: "What happens to the licence if So-and-so, the licensor, goes
bankrupt or disappears in ten years' time?" <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Of course, all else being equal, it is natural for an initial innovator
to remain in charge of ongoing development and to act as a champion of the
technology. However, it seems key to the open source approach that the initial
innovator not use his or her ownership of the intellectual property in the
initial seed technology to retain control over its ongoing development. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>It appears to me that this freedom to fork the innovative process with
or without the approval of the initial licensor is lacking in the BiOS
scheme. Why?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(a) The grantback incorporates stringent reporting requirements to
CAMBIA (Licence cll. 3.2 and 3.4) and obliges the licensee to provide CAMBIA
with any materials necessary to practise Improvements (Licence cl. 3.2). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(b) Discussions of technology data between BiOS licensees must be
channeled through CAMBIA (TSSS Agreement, cl. 2.3). <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(c) CAMBIA retains the right to impose an obligation on licensees to
include CAMBIA’s trademarks in downstream technologies (Licence cl.
7.9). (This provision closely resembles one that I thought was removed
from an early version of the open source BSD software licence because it
imposed too much of a restriction on the freedom of downstream developers -- is
this correct?) <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(d) Under Licence cl. 7.5 and a similar provision in the TSSS
Agreement, CAMBIA "may publish revised and/or new versions of the BiOS
License for Plant Enabling Technologies from time to time. Such new versions
will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new or newly identified issues. Each version will be given a
distinguishing version number. ... Where there is... any controversy between
the parties respecting the interpretation or application of the terms of this
Agreement, the latest... version of the Agreement published on the BIOS website
shall be controlling." <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>(e) Perhaps the most extreme instance of CAMBIA's apparent attempt to
keep its hand on the reins of future development is in the TSSS Agreement, cl.
6, which reads in part:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"From time to time
BiOS LICENSEE may have interest in exploring solutions to certain problems in
its field of business. In such case BiOS LICENSEE <i><span style='font-style:
italic'>shall </span></i>[emphasis added] send a written project proposal to
CAMBIA. To the extent that such project proposal is consistent with the terms
and intent of the BIOS License, which consistency shall be determined by CAMBIA
in its sole discretion, CAMBIA shall use its best efforts to... bring the
proposal to the attention of other parties within the BIOS
Initiative...". </span></font></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>In other words, the licensee is obliged to send a written proposal to
CAMBIA, but CAMBIA is not obliged to do anything with it. The effect
(whether or not intended) is that CAMBIA gets a private preview of any new
project.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thank you for your input.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Janet<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>