Subject: RE: For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
From: "Wilson, Andrew" <andrew.wilson@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:39:02 -0700

 Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:39:02 -0700
 
Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> IANAL, but it seems clear the patent claims *are* owned by MIT, though

> not controlled by them.  Thus, they are unfortunately "owned or 
> controlled" and would necessarily have to be granted.  This is
intended 
> for cases where a company is an exclusive licensee, while MIT is the 
> exclusive licensor.

The exact definition of Licensable in CDDL is
"means having the right to grant."  If the Institute
has already granted exclusivity to a 3rd party,
seems to me that patent is not Licensable since
the Institute has no further rights to grant.

IANAL, etc., etc.

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center