<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Thanks! But I think Simon was talking about the email. It is
certainly a wall of text.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/3/2025 12:10 PM, McCoy Smith
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:cab7f23e-8cf4-45dc-af3e-7e73e986d7f3@lexpan.law">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>i did a libre office compare of the feb 2025 version vs the
march 2025 version (which is the current, I believe) see
attached.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/3/2025 10:31 AM, Simon Phipps
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAA4ffp-jwjgU=u-HSNnnkA12Sa2uKDqL8DOZ7M_kM1foRnwTbw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Marvin,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I for one would ve very grateful if you would concisely
highlight what you have changed here please.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Simon</div>
<div>(in a personal capacity)</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at
6:28 PM Barksdale, Marvin <<a
href="mailto:mbarksdale@mgb.org" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">mbarksdale@mgb.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="msg8913569016311582614">
<div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_7304349581277884727WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>I Marvin Barksdale JD, the
license steward and license submitter, attests
that this 2<sup>nd</sup> resubmission of the new
“MGB 1.0” license complies with the Open Source
Definition, including:</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>OSD 3 – The license must allow
modifications and derived works and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the
license of the original software.</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>OSD 5 – The license must not
discriminate against any person or group of
persons.</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>OSD 6 – The license must not
restrict anyone from making use of the program in
a specific field of endeavor. </i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>and OSD 9 – The license must
not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For
example, the license must not insist that all
other programs distributed on the same medium must
be open source software.</i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>License Rationale</u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The MGB Open-Source License 1.0
(“MGB 1.0”) is a permissive open-source software
license that was drafted to catalyze open-source
distribution and open science among the health care
innovator and research community, particularly those
employed at Academic Medical Centers (AMCs)
receiving federal grant funding, such as Mass
General Brigham Incorporated (MGB). AMCs are
hospitals, laboratories, and medical schools
frequently collectively organized as systems, with a
federally regulated mission to provide patient care,
train healthcare professionals, and conduct
innovative research. As self-contained businesses,
these complex organizations have evolved to perform
several ancillary commercial functions including
patent administration, licensing, co-development,
all of which to support their central mission of the
advancement of medicine. Aligned with this central
mission is the proliferation of open science
innovation at AMCs. While AMCs have evolved their
proprietary IP strategies, many of their research
and clinical employees have shifted to open science
collaborative approaches where research data,
methodologies, source code and findings are licensed
to be shared at no cost to catalyze innovation.
Despite both approaches purporting to be operating
in the benefit of AMC system goals, there has been a
historical lack of alignment between open and
proprietary licensing activity. At Mass General
Brigham, for example, despite receiving over $77M in
NIH funding over the past 10 years for 200+ software
research projects that should have yielded
open-science results and commercial innovation,
there is a large clandestine community of
researchers, clinicians, developers, and other
health care employees, who operate in the grey areas
of open source, NIH, Open Access Journal, and AMC
compliance. The goal of MGB 1.0 is to bring
open-source licensing into AMC licensing compliance,
which mandates employees out-license AMC assets
under express risk mitigation terms spanning several
federal mandates and best practices including: HIPAA
laws not to share “Protected Health Information” and
other personal info, federal 501 c-3
anti-endorsement laws, and licensing software on an
“As-Is” basis without implied warranties,
representations, and damages. These terms are not
explicitly outlined in similarly permissive licenses
such as MIT and BSD, but all can align with
fundamental principles of openness. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Beyond bringing NIH funded
researchers and health care innovators into an AMC
compliant open-source licensing scheme, MGB 1.0
seeks to balance the modern AMCs mission driven
commercialization activities with its scientific
mission to break down barriers to knowledge access
and collaboration within healthcare. Although MGB
1.0 uses a similar pro-commercialization,
pro-modification, highly compatible licensing scheme
as Apache 2.0, MGB 1.0 aims to limit to its express
patent license to the software itself eg. claims
embodied by the work, as well as to address the
guidelines of the work’s inclusion of patient
personal information. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>Legal Analysis</u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span
style="text-decoration:none"> </span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Patent law’s broad definition of
infringement and the courts broad interpretation of
the Doctrine of Equivalence (DoE) sits at the center
of MGB 1.0 patent grant approach. 35 USC 271 states
that “for a licensee to successfully assert that
their contribution or derivative work is infringing
on a patent, the licensee must show that they are
making, using, selling, etc. some thing or process
that is covered by the patent.” Thus, via 35 USC
271, showing infringement requires performing a
comparison between “a patented invention’s claim”
and “whatever it is that the defendant makes, uses,
offers to sell, or sells.” According to the court in
Bai v. L L Wings, Inc., "determining whether a
patent claim has been infringed involves two steps:
(1) claim construction to determine the scope of the
claims, followed by (2) determination whether the
properly construed claim encompasses the accused
structure. The first step, claim construction, is a
matter of law. . . . The second step, determination
of infringement, whether literal or under the
doctrine of equivalents , is a question of fact." </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thus, while OSD 9 demands that
the licensee must be free to use the licensed
software free of any potential claim for
infringement under any infringement theory,” Apache
2.0’s patent grant to infringing claims extends
beyond the use of the licensed software, to granting
patents to claims that may contain other
“equivalent” non-licensed software. This concept is
consistent with, Winans v Denmead, where the courts
found patent infringement reaching beyond literal
infringement of patent claims either by way of a
“insubstantial differences” test or a
‘‘function-way-result” test, both of which
requiring a difficult factual assessment for the
jury (or judge in a bench trial). Presenting even
more uncertainty for potential infringers, courts
have more recently found an additional way to prove
equivalency by showing that the accused equivalent
and the claimed patent feature were known “in the
art” to be used interchangeably. Hilton Davis v
Warner-Jenkinson. MGB 1.0 maintains the licensee’s
ability to use the licensed software free of
infringement under even a DoE infringement theory,
but ensures the patent grant is narrowed to the
software only; without putting burden on
contributors to decipher difficult questions of fact
to figure out the extent of the patent grant beyond
literal infringement of the software. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">MGB 1.0’s 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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Accordingly, an example where the
Apache 2.0 license can be utilized to obtain a
patent license beyond what is embodied a claim,
would be via MGB filing a patent with multiple
claims; where open source code is embodied in one
claim [A] , and closed source software is embodied
in another [B]. Under Apache 2.0, this patent filing
scheme creates an opportunity for contributors to
intentionally infringe on claim [B] (which includes
separate non open source code), by contributing
code that infringes on [B] through DoE. Although
this is accepted DoE infringement via us patent case
law, infringing on other claims that include
separate non open source code is beyond what is
necessary for a licensee to freely use the open
source licensed software itself. This intent to
“contract around" infringement overreach (eg beyond
the software itself), to narrowly confine open
source license patent grants to the licensed
software itself, is observable across several osi
licenses including the aforementioned AFL and BNU
v3. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">MGB 1.0 was co drafted by myself,
Marvin Barksdale JD, and Preston Regehr Esq. of Tech
Law Ventures PLLC, before being reviewed and
approved for system use by Mass General Brigham’s
Office of General Counsel’s IP Group. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<u>Summary</u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">MGB 1.0 provides express
licensing risk provisions required by AMC Tech
Transfer and General Counsel Offices while
protecting AMC commercial activity as a patent
portfolio holder and as an ongoing code contributor
via AMC resources. To these ends MGB 1.0 utilizes
a more direct risk mitigation approach than the MIT
or BSD licenses. Furthermore, although MGB 1.0 uses
a similar approach to Apache 2.0, MGB 1.0 narrowly
confines the express license grant to the software
itself or patent claims owned or controlled by the
Contributor that are embodied in the shared work.
Beyond the patent grant, MGB 1.0 also adds HIPAA
risk mitigation language that is imperative as osi
has defined open source ai as including the shared
data by which it was trained. This language is
imperative for AMC’s and their open source ai
innovators potentially sharing patient data with
licensees unfamiliar with HIPAA obligations. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Calibri
Light",sans-serif;color:rgb(0,156,166)">__________________</span></b><span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:16pt;font-family:"Calibri
Light",sans-serif;color:black">Marvin
Barksdale</span><span
style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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 <a
href="https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline</a>
.</p>
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. </p>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the
sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source
Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative
will be sent from an <a href="http://opensource.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">opensource.org</a>
email address.<br>
<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br clear="all">
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><b>Simon Phipps</b> </div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font size="1"><i>Office:</i> <span
title="Call with Google Voice"><span
title="Call with Google Voice"><span
title="Call with Google Voice">+1
(415) 683-7660</span></span></span> <i>or</i> +44 <span
title="Call with Google Voice"><span
title="Call with Google Voice"><span
title="Call with Google Voice">(238)
098 7027</span></span></span></font></div>
<div><font size="1"><i>Signal/Telegram/Mobile</i>:
+44 <span title="Call with Google
Voice"><span title="Call with
Google Voice"><span title="Call
with Google Voice">774 776
2816</span></span></span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><font size="1"><br>
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>