For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)

[Karin Rivard]

John,
>>If that's what worries you, then add a proviso to the Open Source license
>>of your choice stating that its patent permissions do not apply to any
>>MIT patents that are exclusively licensed to third parties.  This would
>>leave the user no worse off than in the case of any other submarine
>>patent that might torpedo an Open Source program.

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.
Thank you.
Karin

At 01:17 PM 7/14/2006, John Cowan wrote:
>Karin Rivard scripsit:
>
> > MIT has not announced that, on its own, it would pursue users of the
> > open source code in order to enforce patents against users of the
> > open source code.
>
>That is, hmmm, most carefully worded.  "MIT has not announced [...] that
>it would pursue" is by no means the same as "MIT has announced [...] that
>it would not pursue".  The latter, expressed in legally binding words,
>would be an Extremely Good Thing.  The former, not so much.
>
> > MIT's position is that we have not knowingly filed any patents that
> > cover the use of the software to be implemented under the BIPL.
> > However, MIT has over 2000 patents in its portfolio, many of which
> > have been licensed to third parties exclusively.  Our exclusive
> > license enables the exclusive licensee to name MIT as a party to an
> > infringement lawsuit as the patent owner--this may only be done if
> > legally necessary in pursuing the infringer and only after discussion
> > (but not permission) from MIT.  Because of wonderfully creative and
> > appropriate patent claim interpretations, it is possible that patents we
> > never anticipated covering use of the open source code could, in fact,
> > have claims that cover use of the open source code.
>
>If that's what worries you, then add a proviso to the Open Source license
>of your choice stating that its patent permissions do not apply to any
>MIT patents that are exclusively licensed to third parties.  This would
>leave the user no worse off than in the case of any other submarine
>patent that might torpedo an Open Source program.
>
>--
>John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan at ccil.org
>The Penguin shall hunt and devour all that is crufty, gnarly and
>bogacious; all code which wriggles like spaghetti, or is infested with
>blighting creatures, or is bound by grave and perilous Licences shall it
>capture.  And in capturing shall it replicate, and in replicating shall
>it document, and in documentation shall it bring freedom, serenity and
>most cool froodiness to the earth and all who code therein.  --Gospel of Tux

__________________________________________________
Karin K. Rivard, Asst. Director and Counsel
MIT Technology Licensing Office, Room NE25-230
Five Cambridge Center, Kendall Square
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone:  (617) 253-6966; Fax: (617) 258-6790
Email:  rivard at mit.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20060714/7f4bff54/attachment.html>