[License-review] 2nd resubmission of the new MGB 1.0 license

[Barksdale, Marvin]

> Hi Marvin

> I for one would be very grateful if you would concisely highlight what you have changed here please.

> Thanks

>Simon

No problem Simon and thanks for the assist Mccoy.  I'll briefly summarize the significant changes to the License and Proposal in text, as it was important for us to put forth a clean proposal representing the most current version of the document for review:


1.      Alignment of the License's grants:  Expressly aligned the patent rights granted with the license's grant of rights , via one of Mccoy's notes.

2.      Clarification of Anti-Proliferation critical license differences between Apache 2.0 and MGB 1.0

a.      MGB 1.0 Limits express the Patent Grant to the licensed software itself eg. claims embodied by the work

b.      MGB 1.0 addresses (HIPAA) guidelines pertaining to the work's  potential inclusion of patient personal information

3.      Clarification that MGB 1.0's patent approach in narrowing the scope of the grant to the software itself eg the use of "embodied" over "infringed", is similar to the patent grant mechanism utilized by the osi approved AFL and the GNU v3 license, which narrows the claims granted only to "essential patent claims,"  not including "claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version."   Similarly these licenses intend to narrow their patent grants to claims that are essential to open source distribution of the licensed copyrighted IP, and not to claims that aren't embodied by the copyrighted IP or that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version.  Our chosen approach was akin to the AFL

a.      Note: The intent of MGB 1.0 is not "contracting around DoE to reserve patent rights against the code released under an open source license," as patent rights as preserved against the code released under the license vs  sperate code that was not.

4.      Simplified the Marketing Derivative Works Authorship Notice of Section 5b to essential notice reqs.

5.      Simplified the Section 6 HIPAA acknowledgement to 3 terms:

a.       The Work may include Data, which You may use

b.      However Author is not required to verify Data or provide PHI and personal information (according to HIPAA)

c.      Author will use best efforts to remove personal information

6.      Maintained Sublicensing rights while reducing implications and express terms of sublicensee control.

7.      Simplified Limitation of Liability Section 10 to essential terms

a.      In no event will Licensor / Contributor / Staff be liable to You / Contributor

b.      Explicit Explanation of Limit to the liability.

Happy to provide any clarification and needed and thanks for reviewing the full text of both docs.
__________________
Marvin Barksdale

The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed.  If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Mass General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline <https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> .
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted).  If you do not wish to continue communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message immediately.  Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-mail. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250304/1eac7e0c/attachment.htm>