Subject: RE: For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:24:15 -0700

Andy Wilson wrote:
> Back to the main topic of why MIT believes they need a license
> with an asymmetrical patent grant, e.g. exclusive patent licenses the
> Institute
> may have granted to 3rd parties.  Karin, my reading of CDDL
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php) would be
> that such patents are not capital-L Licensable under CDDL.
> However, other patents owned by the Institute would be
> Licensable and covered by the original developer grant.  In other words,
> I believe CDDL accomplishes your stated goals.

So does the OSL/AFL. It only grants patent claims that are "owned or
controlled by the Licensor." I believe that's typical language for most
modern open source licenses.

/Larry