<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I would like to thank Yuta-san for their insightful view on the
termination provision, which I find helpful. I would also like to
build on what Joshua wrote below.</p>
<p>What I find distinguishable about a termination of the copyright
license versus the patent license is that copyright infringement
doesn't happen by accident. There is no copyright infringement
without deliberate, knowing copying. Someone may have made the
judgment call that the copying is lawful, and therefore not an
infringement, but it was nevertheless intentional conduct.</p>
<p>I do find it inconsistent with my understanding of open source
and the open source community that someone who intentionally committed
a wrongful act should be allowed to avoid the consequences of that
act. I raised this point early on and no one responded to give a
reason why this intentional conduct was innocent enough that the
withdrawal of the license, in Joshua's words, is a price that a
licensor can demand in exchange for the use of their work. We
expect members of the open source community to act ethically, but
this provision allows deliberate, intentionally, willful
wrongdoers to escape some degree of responsibility for their
choices merely by choosing this license. This is not an AI vs.
software issue, this is true if the license is used for software
alone, as it can be. I don't understand why that is acceptable in
a license and would very much like to understand from others why
they think it is. </p>
<p>Pam</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<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>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/3/2026 8:26 PM, Joshua Gay via
License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+gCWQV8jOw0nfeWhr-rx6_OgO-yv7vYFihPRGk8tarOGc3EwQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Respectfully, I have serious concerns with where
this conversation is going. <br>
<p>I think the "fruit of my labor" framing obscures why patent
termination has traditionally been accepted in open-source
licenses.</p>
<p>If the principle were simply that a licensor may demand
"you may use my work only if you do not sue me," well then,
sure, Pamela is right that there would be no logical
stopping point. The same rationale could justify termination
for copyright, trademark, contract, privacy, employment, or
almost any other claim the licensor considers threatening.</p>
<p>But that cannot itself be the open-source rationale,
because it treats the licensor's reason for imposing a
condition as sufficient reason for OSI to accept it. Those
are separate inquiries:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>Every restrictive condition can be characterized as the
price a licensor demands in exchange for use of its
work.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Open-source review must still determine whether
imposing that price is consistent with the freedoms the
license is supposed to carry to users.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>The historical justification for patent termination is much
narrower. A copyright license alone may not provide
practical freedom to make, use, or distribute software
because patents can independently prohibit those same
activities. . . . The patent grant closes that gap.</p>
<p>A termination provision tied to patent litigation can
protect the resulting patent peace by withdrawing the patent
grant from a recipient that enjoys it while asserting
patents against the covered work. Apache-2.0 illustrates
that relationship directly: the patent grant and termination
provision appear in the same section, and covered patent
litigation terminates the patent licenses granted for that
Work. Some approved licenses impose broader consequences,
but that shows that OSI has sometimes implemented the patent
exception broadly. It does not establish a general principle
that any claim concerning licensed material may terminate
the license.</p>
<p>Mike's clarification narrows the copyright claims covered
by OpenMDW. A claim based only on the use of copyrighted
material during training would not trigger termination
unless the claimant also alleges that the resulting Model
Materials directly or indirectly infringe. That is an
important limitation, but it does not answer the underlying
question. Even on that narrower reading, a copyright holder
may be asking a court to decide whether the Model Materials
incorporate or reproduce its protected expression without
authorization and whether the distributor had the right to
publish what it purported to license.</p>
<p>How do OpenMDW responds to that claim? By terminating every
grant the claimant received under the license! Termination
occurs upon filing or maintaining the claim, before its
merits have been determined, <b>and the claim may be
brought against any person or entity rather than only the
licensor!</b> (Or at least, that is how I am reading it.)
The copyright claim remains available, but pursuing it
creates additional potential liability for the claimant's
continued use, modification, or distribution of the Model
Materials. The provision therefore increases the cost of
obtaining a decision about whether those materials were
lawfully published in the first place.</p>
<p>Calling copyright litigation a "real threat" explains why
model publishers would want that protection. It does not
establish why using an open-source license to provide that
protection is acceptable. Many kinds of litigation present
real threats to licensors. If the existence of a serious
threat were itself sufficient, the licensor's interest in
avoiding litigation would become the measure of what
conditions an open-source license may impose.</p>
<p>Nexus and proportionality (and I must admit, my confidence
is not as strong on this, so please correct me if I am
getting this wrong) may help evaluate the boundaries of an
otherwise justified termination provision, but they do not
supply the missing justification. That is, if I am
understanding this correctly, a nexus tells us that the
lawsuit concerns the Model Materials, but it does not tell
us why bringing that lawsuit may properly result in the loss
of every permission to use them. On the other hand,
proportionality requires examining the consequence as well
as the trigger, and immediate termination of every grant
upon filing a claim against any person is not proportionate
merely because the claim concerns those materials.</p>
<p>The question is therefore not whether copyright litigation
poses a real threat to model publishers. I think we all
concede that it can. The question is: what open-source
principle permits a license to respond to that threat by
terminating every grant to the claimant? And, patent
precedent cannot answer that question unless its
patent-specific justification also applies to copyright. </p>
<p>And, I have not yet seen an explanation of why it does.
Unless that explanation can be supplied, the fact that
copyright litigation threatens model publishers remains a
reason why publishers want the condition, not a reason for
OSI to accept it as a reasonable open-source condition.</p>
<p>Best, </p>
<p>Josh</p>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
Joshua Gay<br>
<div>Sr. Manager, Open Source Community and Infrastructure</div>
IEEE SA </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at
5:56\u202fPM Shuji Sado <<a href="mailto:shujisado@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">shujisado@gmail.com</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 dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
Pamela-san and All,<br>
<br>
I have been translating almost all of this discussion
into Japanese as I work through it, and it has been a
genuinely deep discussion. It has also been costing me a
little sleep lately. :)<br>
<br>
I think Pamela-san's latest message usefully identifies
the philosophical divide, but Mike's clarification of
the scope of the trigger makes me wonder whether the
choice is quite as binary as it first appears.<br>
<br>
Mike has now clarified that "indirectly" in Section 5 is
intended to refer to secondary liability, such as a
claim that making, using, or distributing the Model
Materials contributes to infringement by others. He also
clarified that OpenMDW-1.1 does not reach back to
artifacts used in creating the model unless those
artifacts are themselves included in the subsequently
published Model Materials.<br>
<br>
That distinction matters to me.<br>
<br>
A claim that copyrighted material was unlawfully
acquired or copied during training is not, by itself,
the same as a claim that the resulting Model Materials
directly or indirectly infringe copyright. So, on Mike's
stated interpretation, the picture in which an ordinary
creator sues merely over unauthorized use of their work
in training and therefore loses the OpenMDW license
seems broader than the intended scope of the trigger.<br>
<br>
The trigger is instead directed at claims against the
licensed Model Materials themselves, whether as direct
infringement or under a theory of secondary liability.
And when I look at that narrower relationship, I still
have difficulty finding a reason why copyright should be
categorically different from patent.<br>
<br>
Suppose the copyright holder of novel A is using model X
under OpenMDW, and then sues the provider asserting that
model X itself infringes the copyright in novel A. The
copyright claim does not disappear. The plaintiff
remains free to pursue the claim and seek whatever
remedies are available. What terminates are the OpenMDW
grants the plaintiff received with respect to those
Model Materials.<br>
<br>
In that situation, I am not sure Open Source principles
require the plaintiff to continue receiving permission
to copy, modify, and distribute the same Model Materials
that the plaintiff is asserting are infringing. I also
do not think recognizing this necessarily leads to the
broader position that any legal claim involving licensed
materials may properly trigger termination.<br>
<br>
Yokoi-san's question and Mike's answer help here as
well. OpenMDW grants rights relating to copyright,
patent, database rights, and trade secrets, but
database-right and trade-secret claims do not trigger
termination. Mike explained that the trigger was not
designed simply to mirror every right in the grant, but
rather around the realistic litigation threats faced by
openly published model materials.<br>
<br>
So perhaps the limiting principle need not be either
"patents are historically special" or "any claim against
licensed materials may trigger termination."
Richard-san's historical point may explain why patent
termination developed first, but I am not sure that
history by itself establishes a categorical boundary for
what may be acceptable today.<br>
<br>
I am increasingly inclined toward a more general
principle:<br>
<br>
A defensive termination provision may be acceptable
where the assertion is directed at the licensed subject
matter itself, provided that the scope and consequences
of the termination are reasonably related and
proportionate to that assertion.<br>
<br>
This would not make every type of litigation a
permissible trigger. It would instead ask whether there
is a sufficiently close nexus between the assertion and
the licensed subject matter, and whether the termination
goes no further than is reasonably justified by that
assertion. To me, that seems more durable than drawing
the line solely according to whether the asserted right
is a patent or a copyright.<br>
<br>
<span class="gmail_signature_prefix">--</span><br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Shuji Sado</div>
<div>Chairman, Open Source Group Japan<br>
<a href="https://opensource.jp/" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://opensource.jp/</a><br>
English blog: <a href="https://shujisado.org/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://shujisado.org/</a></div>
<div>Japanese blog: <a href="https://shujisado.com/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://shujisado.com/</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">2026/9/3 8:46 Pamela
Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>>:<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>
<div>On 9/2/2026 3:39 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 9/1/2026 3:34 PM, Richard Fontana via
License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;background-color:transparent">On
Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 5:56\u202fPM Josh Berkus
<<a href="mailto:josh@berkus.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">josh@berkus.org</a>>
wrote:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I'll stand by my claim, though, that any
argument that can be made <br>
against the principle* of a copyright
antisuit provision applies equally <br>
to a patent one. And that if OSI decides
that the former isn't <br>
OSI-compliant, then the latter isn't
either, and we're going to need to <br>
revisit a lot of licenses.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">This is clearly one of
the questions the OSI needs to resolve: is
there something special about copyright?
Or is there something special about
patent?</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In terms of historical
precedent, I think we can leave the
long-abandoned OCLC license aside as a
likely case where the early OSI wasn't
thinking about things as carefully as the
present-day OSI would (that's about as
charitable as I'm willing to be here).
Having looked at the OCLC license-discuss
thread the other day, I don't think anyone
paid any attention to the litigation
termination provision. I wonder actually
if some of the license-discuss
participants noticed it but thought
"intellectual property" was synonymous
with "patent", but I don't think any of
the participants were on the board at the
time other than Russ Nelson. I seriously
think it's not beyond the realm of
possibility that the OCLC lawyers who
*drafted* the license sincerely thought
"intellectual property infringement
litigation" was synonymous with "patent
infringement litigation". </div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The OSI should also think
about the other side of the question. If a
copyright trigger for license termination
(including copyright license termination)
is okay in addition to a patent litigation
trigger, what about other kinds of claims?
Trademark infringement? Trade secret? What
about claims concerning things having no
connection to the software (or model,
etc.) being licensed? Shareholder
litigation? Personal injury? Employment
discrimination? </div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The IBM Public License
says:<br>
<br>
"<span
style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);color:rgb(88,89,91);font-family:Roboto,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">If
Recipient institutes patent litigation
against a Contributor with respect to a
patent applicable to software (including
a cross-claim or counterclaim in a
lawsuit), then any patent licenses
granted by that Contributor to such
Recipient under this Agreement shall
terminate as of the date such litigation
is filed."</span></div>
<div
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span
style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);color:rgb(88,89,91);font-family:Roboto,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font color="#58595b"
face="Roboto, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:14px;background-color:rgb(247,247,247)">Assuming the
OSI would consider this acceptable in
an open source license today, what if
instead it said:<br>
<br>
"</span></font><span
style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);color:rgb(88,89,91);font-family:Roboto,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">If
Recipient institutes copyright
litigation against a Contributor with
respect to a copyright applicable to
software (including a cross-claim or
counterclaim in a lawsuit), then any
copyright licenses granted by that
Contributor to such Recipient under this
Agreement shall terminate as of the date
such litigation is filed."</span></div>
<div><span
style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);color:rgb(88,89,91);font-family:Roboto,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span
style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);color:rgb(88,89,91);font-family:Roboto,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px">Surely
that would not be okay ... would it?</span></div>
<div><span
style="background-color:rgb(247,247,247);color:rgb(88,89,91);font-family:Roboto,"Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px"></span><span
style="white-space:pre-wrap">
</span></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Litigation termination triggers seem to be the
one area where the discussion is converging on:
what sort of litigation can properly terminate
grants in a license, and what grants can be
terminated?</p>
<p>So: can patent litigation trigger termination?
That's a fairly common trigger. Against what?
The example above from the IBM public license
(OSI-approved <a
href="https://opensource.org/license/IPL-1.0"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://opensource.org/license/IPL-1.0</a>)
the trigger applies to any patent litigation
"applicable to software." I think this sort of
broad trigger is, to put it mildly, disfavored.
What about what's in the currently pending
ModelGo-Attribution-2.0 license:<br>
"This License shall terminate immediately ... if
You initiate any legal action against the
Licensor alleging that the Licensed Materials
and/or Derivative Materials infringe any patent
worldwide." <br>
I believe many feel that extending the trigger
to Derivative Materials (i.e., things beyond
that which the patent holder has licensed under
the license) is also too broad (and most of the
popular licenses explicitly or implicitly are
not triggered by patent claims against
derivative works.</p>
<p>As to Richard's question, I don't see where the
trigger in OpenMDW-1.1 is "concerning things
having no connection to the software (or model,
etc.) being licensed." OpenMDW-1.1's trigger
says:<br>
"If you file, maintain, or voluntarily
participate in a lawsuit against any person or
entity *asserting that the Model Materials
directly or indirectly infringe any patent or
copyright,* then all rights and grants made to
you hereunder are terminated, unless that
lawsuit was in response to a corresponding
lawsuit first brought against you."</p>
<p>The license grants copyright and patent rights,
and the trigger is a reciprocal assertion of
those same rights, and both apply to the Model
Materials, which is what the licensor licenses
and the licensee is licensed to. And unlike,
say, ModelGo-Attribution, the assertion in
OpenMDW-1.1 must be against the "Model
Materials" which are defined as "the materials
provided to you under this agreement," not what
you were licensed plus anything else that is
subsequently created.</p>
<p>If people think that patent triggers are OK
(and possibly that patent triggers can, as in
MPLv2 & GPLv3, terminate other rights, like
copyright), and copyright triggers are not,
that's OK, and we've had people try to
articulate why they believe it is
philosophically different, but I'm not sure it
leads to a slippery slope where *any* sort of
trigger must therefore be permissible. And I
wonder how that same rationale would deal with
the ModelGo-Attribution-2.0 trigger.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I believe we are seeing a philosophical divide. I
wouldn't consider the more expansive view a
slippery slope, but it is more generous to the
licensor because of the philosophical
underpinnings.</p>
<p>On one side we have the view that, if you use the
fruit of my labor, it's only fair that in exchange
you not sue me. If that's the accepted rationale
for the trigger, then as a matter of logic it
should be a valid position for any kind of claim
against the licensed materials, whether copyright,
trade secret, patent, database, moral rights, etc.
The further extension that Richard identified was
that any claim against the licensor, i.e., what
Facebook's BSD + Patent license tried to do, could
also be fair game. That could be a slippery slope,
but I don't think anyone is advocating for this
expansion.</p>
<p>The other side of the divide is the one that
believes patents are a special case with logic
that doesn't extend beyond patents, as articulated
in different ways by different people for
different reasons.</p>
<p>So the question is -- which is the better path?</p>
<p>Just to clarify a statement you made, the OpenMDW
grants patent, copyright, trade secret and
database rights, but only infringement of the
patent and copyright rights are a trigger. </p>
On the ModelGo license question about Derivative
Works, I don't think that's particularly relevant to
this license, because the OpenMDW license doesn't
take that position. It might be easier to just stick
to the issues presented in the OpenMDW license.
<p>Pam</p>
<p><br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
<a
href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/4641+Post+St.+%0D%0A++++++Unit+4316+%0D%0A++++++El+Dorado+Hills,+CA+95762?entry=gmail&source=g"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">4641 Post
St.</a><br>
<a
href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/4641+Post+St.+%0D%0A++++++Unit+4316+%0D%0A++++++El+Dorado+Hills,+CA+95762?entry=gmail&source=g"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"> Unit
4316</a><br>
<a
href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/4641+Post+St.+%0D%0A++++++Unit+4316+%0D%0A++++++El+Dorado+Hills,+CA+95762?entry=gmail&source=g"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"> El
Dorado Hills, CA 95762</a><br>
<a href="tel:(919)%20800-8033"
value="+19198008033" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">+1 919-800-8033</a><br>
<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.chesteklegal.com</a></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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br clear="all">
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br clear="all">
</div>
<br>
<span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<p
style="margin:0px;line-height:1.4;color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:"helvetica neue",helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
<br>
</p>
<div
style="color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:"helvetica neue",helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"
style="font-size:inherit;max-width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border:medium">
<tbody>
<tr style="height:49pt">
<td width="325" valign="top"
style="vertical-align:top;width:207pt;border-width:medium 1pt medium medium;border-style:none solid none none;border-color:currentcolor windowtext currentcolor currentcolor;padding:0in 5.4pt;height:49pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:1.4"><span
face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><b>Joshua Gay</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:1.4"><span
face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Sr. Manager SA
Open Source Community and Infrastructure</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:1.4"><span
face="arial, sans-serif" color="#000000"
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif">+1 617-966-9792
| <a href="http://standards.ieee.org/"
style="color:rgb(75,137,178);word-break:break-all" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">standards.ieee.org</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:1.4;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:Roboto,RobotoDraft,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:1.4;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span
face="Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:Roboto,RobotoDraft,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif"> </span><a
href="https://www.facebook.com/ieeesa"
style="color:rgb(75,137,178);word-break:break-all;font-size:small;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/visuals/icons/email-signature/facebook-icon.png"
style="border: medium; max-width: none;"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a><span
style="font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"> </span><a
href="https://www.instagram.com/ieeesa/"
style="color:rgb(75,137,178);word-break:break-all;font-size:small;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/visuals/icons/email-signature/instagram-icon.png"
style="border: medium; max-width: none;"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a><span
style="font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"> </span><a
href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/2596931/"
style="color:rgb(75,137,178);word-break:break-all;font-size:12pt"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/visuals/icons/email-signature/linkedin-icon.png"
style="border: medium; max-width: none;"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a><span
style="font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"> </span><a
href="https://twitter.com/ieeesa"
style="color:rgb(75,137,178);word-break:break-all;font-size:small;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/visuals/icons/email-signature/twitter-icon.png"
style="border: medium; max-width: none;"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a><span
style="font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"> </span><span
color="#1155CC"
style="font-size:small;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(17,85,204)"><a
href="https://www.youtube.com/ieeesa"
style="color:rgb(75,137,178);word-break:break-all" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/visuals/icons/email-signature/youtube-icon.png"
style="border: medium; max-width: none;"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a> </span><span
style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
</td>
<td width="186" valign="top"
style="vertical-align:top;width:139.25pt;border:medium;padding:0in 5.4pt;height:49pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:1.4;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> <a
href="https://standards.ieee.org/"
style="color:rgb(75,137,178);word-break:break-all" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><b
style="font-size:small;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"><img
src="https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/visuals/icons/email-signature/ieeesa-logo.png"
width="96" height="57"
style="border: medium; max-width: none;"
moz-do-not-send="true"></b></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p
style="margin:0px;line-height:1.4;color:rgb(50,50,50);font-family:"helvetica neue",helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-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.
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>