<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I had previously only looked at the patent clause and data
clause. I have now read the license in full and have the following
comments:<br>
<br>
Definition, "License": "as defined by Sections 1 through 13 of
this document." There are only 12 sections in the license.<br>
<br>
Section 2, "Grant of License," and Section 3, "Patent License":
You have modified the Apache license by removing the word
"copyright" and you have added verbs that are in the Patent Act
and not in the Copyright Act, namely, "make, use, sell, import."
This therefore appears to be a grant of a patent license in
Section 2. You then grant another patent license, of different
scope, in Section 3. The grant in Section 2 is irrevocable but the
grant in Section 3 can be revoked if there is a patent claim.<br>
<br>
Section 5(b): "In marketing your Derivative Work, You and Your
Sublicensee as applicable, shall acknowledge Licensor by
conspicuously marking any portion of the Work included with or
integrated into Derivative Work with the conspicuous following
statement and attribution, or conspicuously included a permanent
link to such statement: [list of personal names]." First, licenses
cannot include hard-coded names because the license is then not
reusable. See <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process">https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process</a> ("The
license must be reusable, meaning that it can be used by any
licensor without changing the terms or having the terms achieve a
different result for a different licensor.") Second, <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.ama.org/the-definition-of-marketing-what-is-marketing/">"marketing"
is defined as</a> "the activity, set of institutions, and
processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging
offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and
society at large." Marketing is public activity, so imposing
duties only where the software is being "marketed," but not if
there is no marketing activity for the software, is very odd.<br>
<br>
Section 7, No Additional Rights: This section is potentially
problematic because the license is intended for use with AI
models. It is not yet clear what type of rights scheme might apply
to models and <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/01/18/are-ai-models-weights-protected-databases/">some
theorize</a> that models may be protected by database rights. By
trying to reserve some rights, it may be that your license would
be construed as not granting all the rights necessary to run,
modify and distribute the Work.<br>
<br>
Section 8, Disclaimer of Warranties: The statement "Licensor MAKES
NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION ... (ii) ... THAT ANY Work OR
DOCUMENTATION[,] WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY PATENTS OR OTHER
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF LICENSOR OR OF ANY THIRD PARTY,"
undermines the patent grant. The Licensor HAS granted a license to
its patents - so is this saying that, despite the license, the use
of the software might still infringe that licensor's patent
rights?<br>
<br>
Section 9, No Trademark or Name License: You prohibit the use of
"anything confusingly similar ... to any Internet website or
Universal Resource Locator of Licensor." This is hugely
burdensome, how is someone supposed to know every URL of every
contributor to the software, and every website of every
contributor, particularly when the software may not include the
names of all contributors?<br>
<br>
Section 10, Limitation of Liability: Typically open source
licenses also exclude direct liability, although you don't have
to.<br>
<br>
Section 11, Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability: "and only
if You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor
harmless <i><b>form </b></i>any liability ..." Should be "for"
or "from." You have also taken the language from the Apache
license and tacked on similar language that is redundant, "You
agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless
form any liability incurred by, or claims asserted against, such
Contributor ... Your indemnification obligations under this
License mean that You, at Your sole expense, shall indemnify,
defend and hold harmless all Contributors ...." This extended
clause also creates a lot of ambiguity. The Apache duty to
indemnify only arises when someone chooses to offer support,
warranty, indemnity or other liability and the duty is only for
the offer of the warranty or additional liability, not for any
type of claim. However, the tacked-on language is much broader and
appears to require that a mere user of the software indemnify the
licensor, since it is invoked for "all liability, damage ... loss
or expense ... in connection with any third-party claims ...."<br>
<br>
Section 12, Interpretation: It's somewhat odd to bother to say
"You may not assign or transfer this License" when anyone can
become a direct licensee by using the software.</p>
<p>Pam<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek (in my personal
capacity)<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>
pamela@chesteklegal<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/13/2025 12:01 PM, Barksdale,
Marvin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BY5PR04MB655067C56A59F9B0F658102ACED32@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;}@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}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;}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">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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"><pamela@chesteklegal.com></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 13, 2025 1:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> License submissions for OSI review
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"><license-review@lists.opensource.org></a>; Barksdale,
Marvin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mbarksdale@mgb.org"><mbarksdale@mgb.org></a><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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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="imap://pamela%2Echestek%40opensource%2Eorg@imap.gmail.com:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/INBOX/license-review/MGB%20License%20-%20pending%3E45?header=quotebody&part=1.1.2&filename=image001.jpg" o:title="" />
<w:wrap type="square" anchory="line"/>
</v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><img
style="width:2.0277in;height:1.4722in"
src="cid:part1.M6HXybX4.wQpoLSnB@chesteklegal.com"
v:shapes="Picture_x0020_1" class="" width="195" hspace="8"
height="141" align="left"><!--[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"
moz-do-not-send="true">
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" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
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>
</body>
</html>