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

[Josh Berkus]

On 3/11/25 21:44, Barksdale, Marvin wrote:
>  > I don't understand the value of saying any of this:
> 
>  > Licensor does not have any obligation under this License to provide
> 
>  > any protected health information (hereinafter referred to as *?PHI?*),
> 
>  > as defined in accordance with 45 CFR ?160.103 of the Health Insurance
> 
>  > Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),or other personal
> 
>  > information, or to validate any data generated by the use of the Work.
> 
>  > ... Licensor has attempted to delete all copies of such personal
> 
>  > information in the data, and will undertake to ensure that the Work
> 
>  > does not contain any data with personal information.
> 
> As a member of one of the leading AMC tech transfer 
> offices in the country, I can attest to the fact that this anti 
> obligation / validation language is boilerplate across the entirety of 
> out-license portfolio. We care about the transparent exercise of our 
> patent data stewardship that much.

What about making it more generic to PII laws in general?  It's best to 
write licenses for posterity, and there's no way for us to predict what 
new data privacy laws may exist in the future.

-- 
Josh Berkus