Subject: RE: For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
From: "Wilson, Andrew" <andrew.wilson@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:47:39 -0700

 Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:47:39 -0700
Ernest Prabakhar wrote:

> Frankly, I think you would be better off with a "patent-neutral"
license, 
> where you dodge the question entirely.   The problem, I presume, is 
> that you want something like the MPL/IBM licenses which require
postbacks.  
> I am not aware of any such license (except the GPL, of course) which 
> doesn't have explicit patent statements, but maybe somebody here can
suggest one.

The Artistic License, to the extent I understand it (minimal!), is
a reciprocal license that doesn't mention patents.

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.

Andy Wilson (MIT dad - Tom Wilson BSCS '05, MSCS '06)
Intel Open Source Technology Center