Subject: RE: For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
From: Russ Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:18:24 -0400

Lawrence Rosen writes:
 > If MIT refuses to grant a patent license for its software, then there is a
 > possibility that MIT (or its faculty, researchers, graduate students, staff,
 > etc.) will later claim royalties for the patents embodied in that software
 > from the users of that open source software. Is it your intention to allow
 > that? How is this at heart different from the Rambus licensing model?

Maybe Larry understands the solution, but I'm not sure I understand
the problem.  If MIT owns a patent, why is there any difficulty with
granting a license to it?  If a license for open source users is a
problem, then sooner or later you're going to get a pacifist who will
object to military uses, or a vegetarian who will object to
meat-packing uses.  If you think you have problems now, just try
crossing a Quaker.

It seems to me that the problem is that MIT's patent licensing system
is broken, not that there is a problem with the MPL that needs fixing.

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com   | When immigration is
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | outlawed, only criminals
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | will immigrate.  Illegal
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | immigration causes crime.