Subject: Re: License Discussion for the Broad Institute Public License (BIPL)
From: Simon Phipps <Simon.Phipps@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 01:43:21 +0100


On May 12, 2006, at 01:02, Philippe Verdy wrote:

> 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).

Excuse me, but Sun does not describe SCSL as an "open source" license  
- it has never been submitted to OSI, is clearly not intended to be  
OSD-compliant, and is obsolescent.  If you find anyone at Sun that  
does describe it as open source, please e-mail ombudsman-AT-sun-DOT- 
com at once.

S.