Subject: RE: For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:36:17 -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.

Perhaps you're right. If so, that's an easy change to make and they are free
to make it. :-) /Larry


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:superm40@comcast.net]
> Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 12:30 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
> 
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 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.
> 
> Matthew Flaschen