Subject: Re: License Discussion for the Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 01:10:27 +0100

On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:02:37AM +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> From: "Matthew Garrett" <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>
> > There are many open source licenses (the BSD and MIT/X11 licenses, for 
> > instance) that do not require full disclosure of any patents that apply 
> > to the software.
> 
> Wel, that's the merit of free software against "open-source" as used by Sun in its
SCSL... (But Sun correctly describes that the software may include patent-covered materials,
and that the licence is personnal and not transferable to sublicensees; may be then
the MIT should better use the Sun SCSL approach).

I don't think anyone has ever seriously argued that the BSD or MIT/X11 
licenses are either non-free or not open source.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org