That's not entirely correct. It's right of first refusal. Here is the terminology:

However, after an initial period, other companies may apply to license certain CRISPR IP for use against genes of interest not being pursued by Editas. Specifically: (i) a third party interested in an individual gene target would provide a bona fide development plan, (ii) Editas then has a pre-defined period to decide whether it intends to pursue the gene of interest and to commit funding and launch a program, and; (iii) if Editas is not already working on the gene of interest and chooses not to launch a new program of its own within this period, the IP may be available for licensing by Broad, Harvard, and MIT to the third party.

I wouldn't call it "fair reasonable and non-discriminatory", but it's not entirely exclusive.

I read three or four places trying to source this, none of them made this distinction.

Is this any different in practice? Don't you have to do a bunch of work before you can provide a bona fide development plan?

It's directly on the Broad page for licensing CRISPR: https://www.broadinstitute.org/partnerships/office-strategic...

Note that they make the tech completely free to the academic community.

Right of first refusal is very different from exclusive licensing. The development plan issue is handled by grownups at companies with hundreds of millions of dollars of funding and they already developed development plans.