<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
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)<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 3/13/2025 2:25 AM, Barksdale, Marvin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BY5PR04MB6550B54C6138EA9D4846C782CED32@BY5PR04MB6550.namprd04.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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-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;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}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;}span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}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]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<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.”<b><o:p></o:p></b></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.”<b><o:p></o:p></b></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).” <b><o:p></o:p></b></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><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>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span
style="font-family:"Calibri
Light",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">Associate
Director, Business Development and Digital Health,
Innovation
</span><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri
Light",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none"> </span><span
style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri
Light",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:none">Mass
General Brigham</span></b><span style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri
Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">399 Revolution
Drive, Suite 955, Somerville, MA 02145</span><span
style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri
Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">Cell
347.217.8247</span><span style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Calibri
Light",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none">Innovation.partners.org</span><span
style="mso-ligatures:none"><o:p></o:p></span></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_2" o:spid="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75" style='position:absolute;margin-left:0;margin-top:0;width:146pt;height:106pt;z-index:251658240;visibility:visible;mso-wrap-style:square;mso-wrap-distance-left:9pt;mso-wrap-distance-top:0;mso-wrap-distance-right:9pt;mso-wrap-distance-bottom:0;mso-position-horizontal:left;mso-position-horizontal-relative:text;mso-position-vertical:top;mso-position-vertical-relative:text'>
<v:imagedata src="imap://pamela%40chesteklegal%2Ecom@imap.gmail.com:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX%3E392122?header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.png" o:title="" />
<w:wrap type="square"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img
style="width:2.0277in;height:1.4722in"
src="cid:part1.0MDp0dxH.oUlnSk5q@chesteklegal.com"
v:shapes="Picture_x0020_2" class="" width="195" hspace="12"
height="141" align="left"><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:none"><br
clear="all">
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></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"
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>
<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>