Subject: Re: For Approval: Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
From: "Ben Tilly" <btilly@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 09:49:35 -0700

On 7/13/06, Matthew Seth Flaschen <superm40@comcast.net> wrote:
> Russ Nelson wrote:
> > Lawrence Rosen writes:
[...]
> > 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.
> >
>
> They provided an answer to this, though I don't think it's quite
> satisfactory either.  They are concerend that they might accidently
> include a patented algorithm in open-source code.  As you say, they
> could normally remedy this by licensing all relevant patents in the
> open-source license.  However, they fear that they may have agreed to an
> *exclusive* license for one of these patents, without knowing it.

As Russ said, the problem is that MIT's patent licensing system is
broken.  I fully understand why it is broken.  That it is broken seems
like an inevitable consequence of our patent system and how actively
MIT pursues patents.

But I have no sympathy for them.  There is a very easy solution, and
it isn't my fault that MIT doesn't want to consider it.

Cheers,
Ben