[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 137, Issue 12
斯楠珏
782701032 at qq.com
Thu Feb 13 02:33:42 UTC 2025
------------------ Original ------------------
From: "license-review" <license-review-request at lists.opensource.org>;
Date: Thu, Feb 13, 2025 00:35 AM
To: "license-review"<license-review at lists.opensource.org>;
Subject: License-review Digest, Vol 137, Issue 12
Send License-review mailing list submissions to
license-review at lists.opensource.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: License-review Digest, Vol 137, Issue 7 (McCoy Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:34:32 -0800
From: McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law>
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 137, Issue 7
Message-ID: <2dbb2052-d5d1-41d4-9d7e-dfc78af79a0d at lexpan.law>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On 2/11/2025 9:38 PM, Barksdale, Marvin wrote:
> Sincere thanks for the feedback Pam and Mccoy, and for the opportunity to better clarify what we're trying to accomplish in the proposed MGB licensed.
>
> Simply put, MGB's goals for MGB 1.0 are to:
>
> 1. Limit the express patent license to patent claims owned by the Contributor that are embodied in the Work, rather than the infringement express patent license standard of Apache 2.0 and similar licenses.
> 2. Address public policy interests around the unlawful distribution of HIPAA protected private information.
>
> I apologize for potentially convoluting the core issues with the narrative elements of the request, as I believe that to at least be partially the case by Pam's assertion that the specificity desired in #1 above "cant be done." While a patent gives its owner the right to exclude others from making, using, and selling an invention, such patented invention may be comprised of several claims, consisting of separate copyrightable source code bases. Thus, while an open source license denotes that anyone should be able to view and use the code and modify it for his own purposes, that does not assure the patent owner - licensor has decided to open source the entire invention (e.g. the open source code may sit within proprietary IP as part of a separate claim). Furthermore, I don't believe "No patent owned by the licenser will be asserted against the software user" is the true assurance given by open source licenses. This assertion that licensors will not assert any patent they own or control against the licensee is a clear slippery slope with the potential to chill innovation. I believe the open source license patent assurance that "No patent claim that is embodied in the software will be asserted against the software user" will satisfy the tenets of free software as have been described. This approach, clarifying the distinction between patented inventions and copywritten open source software, has been well addressed across a number of industries as well as in past open source licenses, most notably by the express patent grant of the AFL 3.0 license by Lawrence Rosen which grants:
>
> "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable license, under patent claims owned or controlled by the Licensor that are embodied in the Original Work as furnished by the Licensor, for the duration of the patents, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, have made, and import the Original Work and Derivative Works."
>
> Utilizing the previous example of a patent for a proprietary car that includes a claim that includes open source software to steer the car, as the claims to the car itself are not embodied in the open source steering software claim, the AFL patent license would not include patent rights to use, sell, or make the car itself. The Apache 2.0 license's patent grant, in contrast, may be interpreted to enable patent rights to the car itself, as it grants contributors "a license to claims infringed by the Contribution to Work." Thus Apache 2.0 is a much wider net with potentially unintended consequences, compared to a license to "claims embodied in the Work." (APL 3.0). Pending approval from MGB's IP Group, if utilizing the APL 3.0 patent grant moves the collective osi reservations to the current MGB 1.0 grant, I can envision an outcome that preserves the flow of open IP, catalyzes scientific research, and enables patent administration activity the space.
I've got to say, the explanation here is quite confusing as it seems to
switch between the Academic Free 3.0 license and the Apache 2.0 license
but it's not clear which of these licenses you are concerned with. If
MGB is intended to be a variant of Apache, you might want to focus on
that. Or if you want to take Apache, but substitute out the Academic
Free patent grant as you think it is better written or more constrained,
maybe do that rather than creating a wholly different patent grant.
Nevertheless, some of the things you say here just don't comport with
the text of the licenses you are analyzing. For example, "The Apache 2.0
license's patent grant, in contrast, may be interpreted to enable patent
rights to the car itself, as it grants contributors "a license to claims
infringed by the Contribution to Work."" Both Work and Contribution are
specifically defined in the Apache 2.0 license as works of authorship
which are either submitted (Contribution) or made available under the
license. Work of authorship is a specific term stemming from the
copyright law (17 USC 102a). A car is not going to be a work of
authorship, nor is a Contribution going to be "intentionally submitted
to Licensor for inclusion in" the car. It *would* encompass any software
used with the car which was licensed under Apache and which the person
making a Contribution submitted it to. So the idea that Apache 2.0 has a
patent overbreadth problem, at least in the example you have proposed,
is really not consistent with the terms of that license.
It's good you're rethinking the original submission, as it had some
significant flaws (both in the drafting, and in conformance with OSD)
but you may want to rethink some of the premises surrounding the whole
reason why you think this license is necessary.If you think that you
want a permissive license with a narrower patent grant than the current
permissive licenses out there, you probably want to follow the text of
those licenses and show what patent claims you don't want your license
to grant, and why not granting those claims doesn't force users of the
software to go to the authors of that software and get a separate patent
license, thus violating OSD 7 (explicitly or implicitly).
> Regarding aim #2 above, MGB 1.0's current section 7 was drafted in the guise of the potential for unenforceability of an open source license to shared patient data on the grounds of illegality due to HIPAA. As a steward of sensitive patient information, MGB must continuously weigh the scientific value open science and open source distribution against the legal obligation to secure patient data.
The point Pam made, as did I, is that the legal obligation already
exists (HIPAA, as well as other privacy laws), so it is not something
that needs to be included in a license. And by including it in a
license, as a restriction, it violates OSD 6 (and maybe 5).
Other licenses have addressed this issue by not imposing a restriction
within the license, but instead merely warning users they either have to
comply with other laws in general, or specific laws of concern:
https://opensource.org/license/intel (as an example). So a clause that
says something like "this license may contain medical privacy
information covered by HIPAA or other privacy laws. Although this
license does not impose restrictions on that information, it is your
responsibility to comply with any and all laws or regulations that
govern that information" would likely be OK.
> That said, I believe there's room for re-drafting this clause, to remove the restriction in this section but still address public policy. Although, we do not want licensees to be obligated to remove PHI, some acknowledgement of PHI due to the limitations of data science is also appropriate here. Although all data stewards possess the obligation to de-identify data before it is shared, the risk of identifying an individual using the data can only be reduced to extremely small levels, never to a non-existent one. Ultimately, as long as MGB can assert that it has no obligation to provide PHI & validate data, I believe we've balanced our duties as steward of data and stewards of an open science license,
>
> -Go Forth-
> With the understanding that a full review of revised language has its own process, if these revisions appear reasonable conceptually, I would like to proceed with submitting a revised version of MGB 1.0 for review. While we are in full alignment that anyone should be able use the Software for any purpose without having to worry about getting sued by the licensor., we strongly believe that said assurance should only extend to that open source Software, not to other software, or necessarily to an entire patentable invention. If preliminarily my suggestions for revisions still remain to appear not possible, I welcome said feedback and another opportunity to propose solutions.
>
> __________________
> Marvin Barksdale, JD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review<license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Oflicense-review-request at lists.opensource.org
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 12:51 PM
> To:license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: License-review Digest, Vol 137, Issue 7
>
> External Email - Use Caution
>
> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
> license-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1V2dOu-nVMsk0pjiVv5kG9ZXUIX2u3oPaLAez08Ts-1vMWcvQFNXwTKGdTpbfwQZZDp7AomIhQfYBxDa8xXol6jqx6mbzJydJc7TdPdX2F_H5SRYhYvgyP_srhWfIWixRY0cSRo9kg5D-8RykfnvZiYQxRo3CHmmBUIA_z6GlAXiLvPRMbvx-fWxJsBWaJqNi8YF99ItJEr8AFvSg_gpxLwCF_nIPclSaVlq5FKxEFDkRZJmfJVLy-JNS5MjEU5aMUgoHgorQXKEGtirNc9TtSFh2Rb-UU5D1186F3oLdm46nyC2wqGEMeHSf9EyajKuO/http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Request for approval of new "MGB 1.0" license (McCoy Smith)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 09:50:06 -0800
> From: McCoy Smith<mccoy at lexpan.law>
> To:license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Request for approval of new "MGB 1.0"
> license
> Message-ID:<3e6de48c-3d1a-4780-b2b6-4e767b88f77c at lexpan.law>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Just to further comment on Pam's comments on the patent grant:
>
> From your rationale, it seems like you are trying to contract around the doctrine of equivalents (DoE). I don't think the language you have in the license really does that, and seems to conflate the PHOSITA analysis of obviousness under patent law with the DoE (I know that DoE does use "person skilled in the art" in some leading cases -- Warner-Jenkins for example -- but that is narrowed to what constitutes and equivalent, which is not what the language of your license says).
>
> Nevertheless, I'm not aware that there's any support in the case law in the USA that you can contract around DoE. Under the rationale of Quanta/LGE, I don't see how you can reach that result (if you can't contract around patent exhaustion, I don't see that you could contract around patent exhaustion of equivalents). If you've got support for that concept, I certainly would be interested in hearing it.
>
> Even if you can contract around DoE, reserving certain patent rights -- i.e., DoE patent rights -- against the very code you release under an open source license likely violates OSD 7 explicitly or implicitly.
>
> I also don't think this license really even solves the problem you identify. "Patent trolls" -- at least as that terms is generally understood -- are entities that have no business other than compiling and asserting patents. A restriction on the patent rights granted to them under an open source license really has no effect if they don't have a business and aren't using open (or closed) source code. For those entities that do use open source code, the concept of open source (and again OSD 7, as written or as currently interpreted by OSI) is that they don't have to get additional rights from a software author after accepting the terms of the open source license. An extra license to get DoE infringed patents would be that. I note that your license -- like Apache -- has a "defensive patent termination clause" which allows for the grant of patent rights to be terminated in the event that a recipient asserts patents against the very code that they are availing themselves of. So cabinning the patent grant itself would be unnecessary in light of this clause, unless you are attempting to have the right to not grant patent rights to users who might at any time in the future sue the author for patent infringement for anything, even things beyond the license code. I think in general this scope of termination is now disfavored (although at least one OSI license -- CPL -- has the concept).
>
>
> On 2/9/2025 10:17 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
>> Dear Marvin,
>>
>> I haven't review the license completely, but based on your email it
>> sounds like you are trying to do something that you just can't do with
>> an open source license. Open source licenses assure that no patent
>> owned by the open source licensor will be asserted against someone
>> using the software. The boundaries are somewhat different in different
>> licenses, but they do ensure that one can use the version of the
>> software released by the licensor without a threat of a patent claim.
>> That is why the patent grant in the open source license is measured by
>> infringement - a license is granted for any potential infringement, no
>> matter what the theory. It sounds like your patent "trolls" may simply
>> be asking for the rights that an open source license granted them.
>>
>> You license grants a patent license "only to the extent such patent
>> claims are necessary for a person with ordinary skill in the art to
>> recreate the Work or create Derivative Works thereof." It doesn't
>> grant a license to run the software and from your explanation it
>> sounds like that is intentional. The patent grant in a FOSS license
>> must be for all possible uses of the code. So you can't grant a
>> license to copy, modify and distribute the code but not also run the
>> software.
>>
>> I also don't think section 7 is acceptable. It expressly states that
>> some part of the licensed work is not subject to the license grant,
>> which is an impermissible restriction. I understand your motive, but
>> there is a difference between someone's duty to comply with the law
>> and making it a contractual obligation. Making it a contractual
>> obligation is what makes it an unacceptable restriction on the use of
>> the software. It also seems unfair to the licensee - how are they
>> supposed to know what and whether there is PII in the Work?
>> Particularly if it's become part of a model? I assume the motive was
>> to try to avoid liability, but will that actually happen if you are
>> making software (or data, graphs or models) available to third
>> parties? Don't you have liability for PII merely by giving it to third
>> parties, and therefore should have sanitized it before making it
>> publicly available?
>>
>> The open source ecosystem only works because anyone can use the
>> software for any purpose without having to worry about getting sued by
>> the licensor. Many, many others have had the same desire to preserve
>> patent rights, including where there are competing divisions with
>> different motives and goals, and encountered this dilemma. The result
>> is that they either don't use an open source license or they get
>> comfortable with the position that the benefit of using an open source
>> license outweighs the loss of the exclusivity of patent. But there
>> isn't a solution whereby some patent rights can be preserved.
>>
>> Pam
>>
>> Pamela S. Chestek (in my personal capacity) Chestek Legal PLEASE NOTE
>> OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS
>> 4641 Post St.
>> Unit 4316
>> El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
>> +1 919-800-8033
>> pamela at chesteklegal
>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1Vnr39saMdYB1uGYtVjEHGA5ehh7aaC4Ta0mgPput7
>> cMsD4F_nqYHVswUkTKd-7Mha0f9yYLrSB1FbulSSBv-SceMLBQgVGYYEJSFY_RdYv6ckS5
>> ZlmsEfuDnugDC4jVbrpackj70p2DBfkgw5_ctA7cNiN5G6Py4dJw6BmwB3J4SMt-Le6Gmh
>> tVFiPF-2Efd21al55zi5SA6G9bq0JybR9B7Bzde-5MTaJQMJCVwbQm_x93iYFUTFg6LUy9
>> KF7F2I3nwK3ISc6iAXZL10GSeTRMvMl_u4j37eSoZurcius4a81GV9LMKIrHwxfracD9a/
>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chesteklegal.com
>>
>>
>> On 2/4/2025 3:51 PM, Barksdale, Marvin wrote:
>>> /I Marvin Barksdale JD, the license steward and license submitter,
>>> attests that this new ?MGB 1.0? license complies with the Open Source
>>> Definition, including:/
>>>
>>> /OSD 3 ? The license must allow modifications and derived works and
>>> must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license
>>> of the original software./
>>>
>>> /OSD 5 ? The license must not discriminate against any person or
>>> group of persons./
>>>
>>> /OSD 6 ? The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
>>> program in a specific field of endeavor. /
>>>
>>> /and OSD 9 ? The license must not place restrictions on other
>>> software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For
>>> example, the license must not insist that all other programs
>>> distributed on the same medium must be open source software./
>>>
>>> //
>>>
>>> _License Rationale_
>>>
>>> The MGB Open-Source License 1.0 (?MGB 1.0?) is a permissive
>>> open-source software license that was drafted to catalyze open-source
>>> distribution and open science among the health care innovator and
>>> research community, particularly those employed at Academic Medical
>>> Centers (AMCs) receiving federal grant funding, such as Mass General
>>> Brigham Incorporated (MGB).? AMCs are hospitals and laboratories,
>>> frequently collectively organized, that are integrated with a medical
>>> school, with a federally regulated mission to provide patient care,
>>> train healthcare professionals, and conduct innovative research.? As
>>> self-contained businesses, these complex organizations have evolved
>>> to perform several ancillary commercial functions including patent
>>> administration, licensing, co-development, all of which to support
>>> their central mission of the advancement of medicine.? Aligned with
>>> this central mission is the proliferation of open science innovation
>>> at AMCs. While AMCs have evolved their proprietary IP strategies,
>>> many of their research and clinical employes have shifted to open
>>> science collaborative approaches where research data, methodologies,
>>> source code and findings are licensed to be shared at no cost to
>>> catalyze innovation. Despite both approaches purporting to be
>>> operating in the benefit of AMC system goals, there has been a
>>> historical lack of alignment been open and proprietary licensing.???
>>> At Mass General Brigham, for example, despite receiving over $77M in
>>> NIH funding over the past 10 years for 200+ software research
>>> projects that should have yielded open-science results and commercial
>>> innovation, there is a large clandestine community of researchers,
>>> clinicians, developers, and other health care employees, who operate
>>> in the grey areas of open source, NIH, Open Access Journal, and AMC
>>> compliance.? The goal of MGB 1.0 is to bring open-source licensing
>>> into AMC licensing compliance, which mandates employees out-license
>>> AMC assets under express risk mitigation terms spanning several
>>> federal mandates and best practices including: HIPAA laws not to
>>> share ?Protected Health Information? and other personal info, federal
>>> 501 c-3 anti-endorsement laws, and licensing software on an ?As-Is?
>>> basis without implied warranties, representations, and damages. These
>>> terms are not explicitly outlined in similarly permissive licenses
>>> such as MIT and BSD, but all can align with fundamental principles of
>>> openness.
>>>
>>> Beyond bringing NIH funded researchers and health care innovators
>>> into an AMC compliant open-source licensing scheme, MGB 1.0 aims to
>>> balance the modern AMCs mission driven commercialization activities
>>> with its scientific mission to break down barriers to knowledge
>>> access and collaboration within healthcare.? Although MGB 1.0 uses a
>>> similar pro-commercialization, pro-modification, highly compatible
>>> licensing scheme as Apache 2.0, it limits an express patent license
>>> to the foundational purpose of openness: recreating and making
>>> derivatives of the shared work. The Apache 2.0 license has long been
>>> prohibited by Mass General Brigham and other AMCs, as instead of a
>>> reasonable open source aligned license to patents needed to recreate
>>> the shared work, it opens the door to a license to all claims
>>> infringed by a contribution to the work.? AMC counsel has defended
>>> AMCs in the past from patent trolls who have attempted to utilize
>>> ?infringement? to gain unintended patent rights, and in light of
>>> MGB?s $15Million dollar per year patent registration spend, it, like
>>> other AMCs, is committed to a conservative position on granting
>>> possibly exploitive patent rights for the purpose of open science
>>> distribution.
>>>
>>> MGB looks forward to putting the full weight of its internal and
>>> external resources behind its Open Science Program Office, the MGB
>>> Open Science Digital Hub, and an OSI approved open-source License.?
>>> As the largest driver of NIH research funding in the country and a
>>> member of a number of influential Health Care Data Ai Consortiums,
>>> MGB promoting an OSI approved license as its default open-source
>>> approach presents an exciting opportunity to bring more health care
>>> innovators closer to the open-source developer community through
>>> thoughtful governance, as well as to catalyze the above ground
>>> adoption of Open Source best practices throughout AMCs.
>>>
>>> _Legal Analysis_
>>>
>>> The question has been posed: ?How is MGB 1.0s Patent License not the
>>> legal equivalent of the Apace 2.0 patent license?? Patent law?s broad
>>> definition of infringement and the courts broad interpretation of the
>>> Doctrine of Equivalence sits at the center of MGBs divergence in
>>> approach.? 35 USC 271 states that? ?for a licensee to successfully
>>> assert that their contribution or derivative work is infringing on a
>>> patent, the licensee must show that they are making, using, selling,
>>> etc. some thing or process that is covered by the patent.?? Thus, via
>>> 35 USC 271,? showing infringement requires performing a comparison
>>> between ?a patented invention?s claim? and ?whatever it is that the
>>> defendant makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells.? According to the
>>> court in Bai v. L L Wings, Inc., "determining whether a patent claim
>>> has been infringed involves two steps: (1) claim construction to
>>> determine the scope of the claims, followed by (2) determination
>>> whether the properly construed claim encompasses the accused
>>> structure. The first step, claim construction, is a matter of law. .
>>> . . The second step, determination of infringement, whether literal
>>> or under the doctrine of equivalents , is a question of fact."
>>>
>>> For more than 150 years (dating back to the 1853 Supreme Court case
>>> Winans v Denmead), courts have found patent infringement reaching
>>> beyond literal infringement of patent claims either by way of a
>>> ?insubstantial differences? test or a ??function-way-result? test,?
>>> both of which requiring a difficult factual assessment for the jury
>>> (or judge in a bench trial). Presenting even more uncertainty for
>>> potential infringers, courts have more recently found an additional
>>> way to prove equivalency by showing that the accused equivalent and
>>> the claimed patent feature were known ?in the art? to be used
>>> interchangeably. Hilton Davis v Warner-Jenkinson. Ultimately,? just
>>> as the Supreme Court in Davis opined that ?the doctrine of
>>> equivalents, when applied broadly, conflicts with the definitional
>>> and public-notice functions of [patent] requirements,? the doctrine
>>> of equivalents when applied broadly as the rationale for granting a
>>> patent license via the Apache 2.0 license may conflict with OSD 5 by
>>> discriminating against patent owners who are later opened up to
>>> patent trolling beyond literal infringement. By subjecting licensors
>>> to infringement claims of interchangeability in the art that arise
>>> after their license grant, Apache 2.0 and other osi licenses that
>>> included express patent grants, may unfairly prejudice licensors
>>> managing patent portfolios via patent exposure.
>>>
>>> Accordingly, an example where the Apache license can be trolled for
>>> expanded patent access would be in cases of "overlapping
>>> infringement." Here, a single work can potentially infringe on two
>>> similar patents when the work incorporates elements that fall within
>>> the claims of both patents, meaning it essentially "uses" aspects of
>>> both inventions without permission from the same or different patent
>>> holder.? Eg, A researcher at Mass General Brigham creates patented
>>> process [A] to create a protein that includes a generative AI
>>> algorithm [B] for 3d mapping that is released open source under
>>> Apache 2.0.?? Sometime later another MGB research lab creates a
>>> patented process [C] to create a protein using a different
>>> proprietary generative AI technique [D] to achieve the same goal,
>>> featuring similar data structure and harness, different mapping tech,
>>> but a broad patent claim with less limitations and no open source
>>> elements. Here a Licensee troll can license Open Source work [B], and
>>> create a derivative work from it that is similar but not identical to
>>> patent [C], but? then claim an express license to patent [C] via
>>> Apache, if the derivative work contribution they?ve created?
>>> infringes on C via ?providing substantially the same function in
>>> substantially the same way to obtain the same result (mapping a
>>> protein)" to patent [C].? As AMCs frequently manage and administer
>>> their own overlapping patents in the same area with different IP
>>> strategy outlooks, Apache's approach of triggering a patent license
>>> via infringement can have unintended results, especially considering
>>> the doctrine of equivalents as a test for infringement.? Using the
>>> MGB 1.0 License, as Patent C isn?t necessary to the use, sale, or
>>> distribution of work B, C would be rightfully excluded from the
>>> patent license in favor of A.
>>>
>>> MGB 1.0 was co drafted by myself, Marvin Barksdale JD, and Preston
>>> Regehr Esq. of Tech Law Ventures PLLC, before being reviewed and
>>> approved for system use by Mass General Brigham?s Office of General
>>> Counsel?s IP Group.? This Group proposed an additional hypothetical
>>> under which the MGB 1.0 license provides a preferred risk mitigation
>>> outcome. In scenarios where a patent contains sperate unified claims,
>>> for example a patent including claims for making and driving a ?car.?
>>> In one possible scenario under this hypo, an open source author wants
>>> to release ?how to make the car? code via the MGB 1.0 license, but a
>>> nefarious licensee (?npe?) wanted to gain a free patent to ?drive the
>>> car? as well. As a patent claim to ?driving the car? would not be
>>> necessary to be able to recreate the source code around ?making the
>>> car?, the npe would not gain the unintended patent access. In a
>>> circumstance where the inventor wants to MGB 1.0 license ?how to
>>> drive the car?, similarly a npe would not obtain patent rights
>>> surrounding the cars design & construction as in the scope of the MGB
>>> 1.0 license?s intent, it is not necessary to have the patent to make
>>> / sell the car in order to replicate the source code to drive it.? If
>>> the open source author / inventor wanted to MGB 1.0 license code to
>>> both ?make and drive the car?, then the included code and readme
>>> files would reflect both and accordingly licensees would receive
>>> both.? As MGB 1.0 utilizes an express patent based on ?claims? rather
>>> than ?infringement?, inventors have superior patent flexibility to
>>> express patent licenses such as Apache 2.0.
>>>
>>>
>>> _Summary_
>>>
>>> MGB 1.0 provides express open source code licensing risk provisions
>>> required by AMC Tech Transfer and General Counsel Offices, while
>>> protecting AMC commercial activity as a patent portfolio holder and
>>> as an ongoing code contributor via AMC resources.?? To these ends MGB
>>> 1.0 utilizes a more direct risk mitigation approach than the MIT or
>>> BSD licenses. Furthermore, although MGB 1.0 uses a similar
>>> compatibility and license modification approach to Apache 2.0, MGB
>>> 1.0 more reasonably confines the express license grant to the
>>> foundational principal of open source, a grant to those patent claims
>>> that are necessary for a person with ordinary skill in the art to
>>> recreate the Work or create Derivative Works.? The Apache 2.0 adds a
>>> high level of uncertainty to patent owners who shouldn?t be
>>> discriminated against or chilled from releasing work in an
>>> open-source schema where patents unnecessary for recreating the work
>>> are granted to open source trolls who claim patent infringement
>>> through the doctrine of equivalence via interchangeability in the art
>>> or otherwise.
>>>
>>> *__________________*
>>>
>>> Marvin Barksdale, JD
>>>
>>> Associate Director, Business Development and Digital Health,
>>> Innovation
>>>
>>> mbarksdale at mgb.org
>>>
>>> *Mass General Brigham*
>>>
>>> 399 Revolution Drive, Suite 955, Somerville, MA 02145
>>>
>>> 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
>>> https://secure-web.cisco.com/1bBPUo45QSjz7m7jkZFZVuVQrWaNI4Fn3ozTCe1tbmTVbRUvmC6GHcn1wyJAiFCow3-8fclQ04K-BIPEz3SI8_Zqh0_DP0VEFD6EmiQ51llRUbnNTTRoczxsn8Qjc4hD1e34MbAzSGkqhQ_EAqPel-CHyFg9SNdsNbUFL1i--Hp1mSbtNqnzoYuiMBN_LKAhcUjlLCzhZkl33E_VbNCApR1bRHTSWf2ftHZmYsM-t-UH1FVJ3s_3W8ymV-EMijF8NonCTJq3xCCAr-bTBoViqputysc7lkZVA7spUcDESfhU0WPTK6SIr1ww16XBmwELQ/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.massgeneralbrigham.org%2Fcomplianceline .
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1V2dOu-nVMsk0pjiVv5kG9ZXUIX2u3oPaLAez08Ts
>>> -1vMWcvQFNXwTKGdTpbfwQZZDp7AomIhQfYBxDa8xXol6jqx6mbzJydJc7TdPdX2F_H5S
>>> RYhYvgyP_srhWfIWixRY0cSRo9kg5D-8RykfnvZiYQxRo3CHmmBUIA_z6GlAXiLvPRMbv
>>> x-fWxJsBWaJqNi8YF99ItJEr8AFvSg_gpxLwCF_nIPclSaVlq5FKxEFDkRZJmfJVLy-JN
>>> S5MjEU5aMUgoHgorQXKEGtirNc9TtSFh2Rb-UU5D1186F3oLdm46nyC2wqGEMeHSf9Eya
>>> jKuO/http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense
>>> -review_lists.opensource.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1V2dOu-nVMsk0pjiVv5kG9ZXUIX2u3oPaLAez08Ts-
>> 1vMWcvQFNXwTKGdTpbfwQZZDp7AomIhQfYBxDa8xXol6jqx6mbzJydJc7TdPdX2F_H5SRY
>> hYvgyP_srhWfIWixRY0cSRo9kg5D-8RykfnvZiYQxRo3CHmmBUIA_z6GlAXiLvPRMbvx-f
>> WxJsBWaJqNi8YF99ItJEr8AFvSg_gpxLwCF_nIPclSaVlq5FKxEFDkRZJmfJVLy-JNS5Mj
>> EU5aMUgoHgorQXKEGtirNc9TtSFh2Rb-UU5D1186F3oLdm46nyC2wqGEMeHSf9EyajKuO/
>> http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-revie
>> w_lists.opensource.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:<http://secure-web.cisco.com/1fPUeR6uAX1RxU591ksj7ojUgo4lI2OcbGgIJKe-jadiF3QlJCMPLpqt93Nc5k9XAr0Ms4o3klaIKodt0I4YcGkIw6hSIPGwYuPk6kJY-JYDO9ewMNwURfHjOf7rcxcnNUtqxnrXhSw5eaQw01YcfiHaE0WEmkYbqNooGc0SECfTUjrkPRLk3I8pB3VRrVVyIZwY11R_-9K4F8aSba74vnAqc6IbEK1lSY1YP_YtpWJ7ENB3adLcuh-z63GyF1a4hhFu7rYHrNAqOY03JKsCpjY_L_353v1v5-vB0DwMZoeJq0nUtXZMGvV1zTDxRjY6K/http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fpipermail%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org%2Fattachments%2F20250210%2F23cce25b%2Fattachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://secure-web.cisco.com/1V2dOu-nVMsk0pjiVv5kG9ZXUIX2u3oPaLAez08Ts-1vMWcvQFNXwTKGdTpbfwQZZDp7AomIhQfYBxDa8xXol6jqx6mbzJydJc7TdPdX2F_H5SRYhYvgyP_srhWfIWixRY0cSRo9kg5D-8RykfnvZiYQxRo3CHmmBUIA_z6GlAXiLvPRMbvx-fWxJsBWaJqNi8YF99ItJEr8AFvSg_gpxLwCF_nIPclSaVlq5FKxEFDkRZJmfJVLy-JNS5MjEU5aMUgoHgorQXKEGtirNc9TtSFh2Rb-UU5D1186F3oLdm46nyC2wqGEMeHSf9EyajKuO/http%3A%2F%2Flists.opensource.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flicense-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-review Digest, Vol 137, Issue 7
> **********************************************
>
> 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 athttps://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline <https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline> .
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250212/ba087bd6/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
License-review at lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
------------------------------
End of License-review Digest, Vol 137, Issue 12
***********************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250213/4541e1f5/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the License-review
mailing list