<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Calibri Light";
panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">For us, a decision based on accurately represented intent and the correct interpretation of the law is more important than a (possible) approval based misapplied facts. We’re trying to get to the best available license for our community
and system, so if the osi decides to not approve what our attorneys believe is our best attempt at a compliant license that will be an unfortunate outcome we will have to accept.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So if my continued assertions that the MGB 1.0 license does not allow a patent infringement claim against any user of the licensor's unmodified version of THE SOFTWARE under any theory, “talks me out of approval,” again I will have to
accept that, as this is indeed the case. The infringement claims allowable under MGB 1.0 would be around DIFFERENT non open source SOFTWARE, that under Apache 2.0 could potentially be infringed on under DoE through a later contribution of code. Not only
do other OSI approved licenses narrow the patent grant focus in a similar constructed way to MGB 1.0, the facts of the “opposing” case law do not match the facts as presented here as this narrowing of the subject of the grant is not an exhaustion of patent
rights, as the licensor never had rights to the different software to be exhausted.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would hope license-review would review contents of the proposal, the license, and the replies instead of preforming their positions and making hasty conclusions about what can’t be done and what courts would never do, that could very
well prejudice this process. Nowhere have we asserted that our intention or the legal effect achieved is not to grant all rights necessary, as the right to use/sell different software, even if this different software is part of the same patent in a different
claim, is not a necessary open source right. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;color:#009CA6;mso-ligatures:none">__________________</span></b><span style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">Marvin Barksdale, JD</span><span style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">From:</span></b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none"> Pamela Chestek <pamela@chesteklegal.com>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 13, 2025 1:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> License submissions for OSI review <license-review@lists.opensource.org>; Barksdale, Marvin <mbarksdale@mgb.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-review] 2nd resubmission of the new MGB 1.0 license<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p><b><span style="color:white;background:red"> External Email - Use Caution </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">You are talking yourself out of approval. What you are failing to understand is that we are trying to find a way to approve your license. License-review is not going to approve a license that allows a patent
infringement claim against a user of the licensor's unmodified version of the software under any theory. McCoy suggested that perhaps the OSI could approve your license, despite your misunderstanding of patent law, based on a belief that your interpretation
of the license language is not one a court would ever agree with and instead the court would interpret it as a grant of a license under all infringement theories.<br>
<br>
But when you insist that your intention is <b><i>not </i></b>to grant all rights necessary, I am inclined to take you at your word, which means your license should not be approved.<br>
<br>
Pam (in my personal capacity)<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">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 href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a href="http://secure-web.cisco.com/1rRzmGp0Z0lx0YB1ktCpw88ojwJsie9BDi5LBzA4t-WnWKyE2O00KtGgU8CwJrT32e-ybaxX7xGOSAq6VaX5osa2hBnJncNLjaWFZ8p5d6q_NL8GCY_g2OugH8zoYOQcxcGXxDfAbtm1igZ8SkV81IgA_4tmKdWKRhERy_-FeVVg_liVKf5MYjWUtTvORAC8ivRl9_lcGJVd06l3xhzj64QzJi3C3doOxN4Drp0MQyBPfN0ppJraHGA6umEYbZpeyyO_QW15EAptR_Mq-q3q8debtV2sOD30koJLiqknqWpQiLY4XdgRyLw8Dj-lCAOZE/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 3/13/2025 2:25 AM, Barksdale, Marvin wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Responding to the previous two notes –<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">1. > 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Although I understand the general desire to “write licenses for prosperity,” it appears the drafters of several popular osi licenses have similarly looked to strike a balance between evergreen language and utilizing critical statutory definitions
which are relevant to industry standards in licensing. This practice has even extended as far as historical statutory definitions that are 20+ years old, deemed relevant to the practices and standards of the time:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>OSET Public License version 2.1 (2015): “</b>The Covered Software is a “commercial item,” as that term is defined in 48<b>
</b>C.F.R. 2.101 (<i>Oct. 1995</i>), consisting of “commercial computer software” and “commercial computer software documentation,” as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (<i>Sept. 1995). </i>Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through
227.7202-4 (<i>June 1995</i>), all U.S. Government End Users acquire Covered Software with only those rights set forth herein.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>NASA Open Source Agreement v1.3</b>: (2004)<b> </b>“Modification means any alteration of, including addition to or deletion from, the substance or structure of either the Original Software or Subject Software, and includes derivative
works, as that term is defined in the Copyright Statute, 17 USC 101.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 (2004): </b>
The Covered Software is a commercial item, as that term is defined in 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (Oct. 1995), consisting of commercial computer software (as that term is defined at 48 C.F.R. 252.227-7014(a)(1)) and commercial computer software documentation as such
terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (Sept. 1995).” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In each of these licenses there was no way for the osi board to predict which new Federal Acquisition or IP laws may exist in the future, but a balance was made to define terms in a way that was relevant to the analysis at hand. Hopefully
that can happen again with MGB 1.0<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">2. > I must say, although you say that [this] is your aim, the use of "embodied" over "infringed" doesn't do that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I’m not sure where the misunderstanding lies here but I question if there is true understanding of my aim if the analysis is again shifting to “contracting around patent exhaustion.” As I have stated, drafting language to alter licensees’
patent rights in the identified claim or licensed software is not the aim. Thus patent exhaustion and the facts of Quinta/LGE and Helferich do not align with my MGB 1.0 goals, or the goals of similar patent grant language of the GNU v3 license. Both the language
used in MGB 1.0 and GNU v3 use different patent grant language than Apache 2.0, which individually narrows the subject invention (eg. what it applies to) of the patent grant, instead of altering patent rights to alter the use and sale of a given invention
(Patent Exhaustion). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Reviewing the Quinta/LGE fact pattern, in the License Agreement LGE authorized Intel to make and sell microprocessor products using the patented inventions, but also stated that no license was granted to any third party for combining licensed
products with other products (for example, for combining Intel microprocessor products with other parts of a computer). Here LG’s first licensing step was to satisfactorily identify the licensed patented inventions, and then to use language to put controls
on how the licensed patent rights could be used. In the both the MGB 1.0 and the Apache 2.0, as patents can extend beyond the face of the claim, the patent grants attempts to identify exactly what claims the grant applies to. If the licenses were to patented
IP versus to copywritten software with an ancillary patent grant, this specification of application would be unnecessary. In Apache the drafters are clear, “such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily
infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted.” Similar to MGB 1.0, the Apache language is not attempting to alter how licensees can exercise their patent rights;
they similarly are establishing what claims the grant of patent rights are applicable to. Thus, neither Apache 1.0 nor MGB 1.0 are violative of the patent exhaustion doctrine, and even though the Helferich license similarly uses the word embody, its license,
like LGE’s, aimed to alter patent use, not narrow the subject of the grant itself. As the reach of patented inventions is beyond copyright’s “fixed in a tangible medium” standard, clarifying the subject of the patent grant in a software license is appropriate
under law, while, in contrast, attempting to contract around how you can use the patent violates the doctrine of patent exhaustion.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">It was also offered that the Apache 2.0’s patent grant is “bounded by the copyright in the Work”. For reference, the Apache language is "where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are
necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted" (where "Contribution" means "any work of authorship, including the original version of the Work and
any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright owner.").
I do not agree with this “bounded to Copyrights in the Work” reading of Apache. The language states “such license applies only to THOSE PATENT CLAIMS licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination…
with the Work….” Thus if the grant applies to Patent Claims that are infringed by Contributor copyrights (as Patent Claims can contain copyrightable code), the grant is not bounded to Work’s copyrights, as the grant applies to Patent Claims, not the Contribution
/ Work itself. In the Apache language, the function of “that are necessarily Infringed by their Contribution,” is to identify what particular Patent Claims the grant applies to. Thus if a separate PATENT CLAIM is necessarily infringed (via DOE for example)
by a Contribution / combination of the Work + Contribution, under Apache 2.0, the grant would extend to the separate patent claim.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Although I have maintained that DoE is at the center of MGB’s alternative strategy, I have Never said contracting around it is my goal. Apache’s choice to identify the patent claims its grant applies to via patent infringement has always
been at issue for AMCs who manage a patent portfolio, as well as MGB and our 10,000 researcher community. The goal is not to tell licensees what they can do with the software they are licensed, but to properly align the patent grant’s reach with the intended
scope of open source distribution, the software itself. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>__________________</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:16.0pt">Marvin Barksdale, JD</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none">Associate Director, Business Development and Digital Health, Innovation
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Mass General Brigham</span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">399 Revolution Drive, Suite 955, Somerville, MA 02145<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cell 347.217.8247<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Innovation.partners.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f">
<v:stroke joinstyle="miter" />
<v:formulas>
<v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0" />
<v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1" />
<v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth" />
<v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0" />
<v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight" />
<v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0" />
</v:formulas>
<v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" />
<o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t" />
</v:shapetype><v:shape id="Picture_x0020_1" o:spid="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75" style='position:absolute;margin-left:0;margin-top:0;width:146.25pt;height:105.75pt;z-index:251658240;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;mso-wrap-distance-left:6pt;mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:6pt;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:left;mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical:absolute;mso-position-vertical-relative:line;mso-width-percent:0;mso-height-percent:0;mso-width-relative:page;mso-height-relative:page' o:allowoverlap="f">
<v:imagedata src="cid:image001.jpg@01DB9421.F3409850" o:title="" />
<w:wrap type="square" anchory="line"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><![if !vml]><img width="195" height="141" style="width:2.0277in;height:1.4722in" src="cid:image003.jpg@01DB9428.D0C27850" align="left" hspace="8" v:shapes="Picture_x0020_1"><![endif]><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none"><br clear="all">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<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://secure-web.cisco.com/1HFAITpcr8Oaz5lsoVAFAlUBVvCp0gCZyRnBZS5kxxex41GDhnU_MvMq8AF3ef-dJXWhtMsddJl3kH5rEUxWWeHON0UflRxlXmBs-QaqW5XgOMQw780kHUjfGLC0tiuTBYhNA_mcMjWuH-H9wbH2vyaZjVCnP-3a-hUubQ-Zvsu1AyEK1_6ge6NPqq9KZsW1qow31YoJgpXF8FjtoFB_ksvkzJtkk3z_WCRR7qENhelBQcwq8Uptn21LOOCwOJcFGOQSi9tzm1DXHnj3VBhXc9L9TGHwnUQSOlHz_W4MR0Qwx3Nbq9Gq8a3Ede1lHY4lj/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.massgeneralbrigham.org%2Fcomplianceline">
https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline</a> .<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-ligatures:none"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>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.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>License-review mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="http://secure-web.cisco.com/1GxLaywKFoRrYYqxdrtCUPyi4qrmYqSCYu1trTE92hdtV3v6vJ9H-VGDiYfcQ4xDbC2MsA7qpbWgEUX1Spl7LzUP2FE8FCyZjO27gX77VPOxy1KvsffSQNgJM6Ax13g21OCvl1zRv6tPaxhJdmUdXTIixJU0A8GB75VGpiEVFsOc6pWniT_EXkyba9ERFneKLPiCesIJezVbGhiQh8rd0sHYXNLuqqClPDvu5k3Rq2LyiuZiaw5gaPiMJ680AivsdIaqAfxb7PLmXZJBkWrivfxiWHo__ILp5OHrV7RiHYRU9c-LPQ_tesDcjn7j3cpV6/http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p> </o:p></span></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">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></body>
</html>