[License-review] Request for approval of new "MGB 1.0" license

[Pamela Chestek]

On 9/24/2025 5:26 AM, Barksdale, Marvin via License-review wrote:

>#
> The *clinical researchers we support* have strongly disagreed with the 
> premise that license language clarifying the applicability and 
> relevance of data / privacy policy to downstream users is not 
> valuable. Furthermore I do not see a clean parallel to the sunsetted 
> Intel license.  The Intel language went as far as stating that under 
> "current" US law the subject software would be export eligible, except 
> for a specific list of countries. For a number of reasons such as the 
> proliferation of HIPAA consent forms, as well as the misconceptions 
> about open source ai, many patients, researchers, and developers 
> *mistakenly believe* ...

So your reason for including it is to correct a misunderstanding of the 
law by lay adopters of the license. But does the paragraph change 
anything about the licensor's liability? Isn't it still just advisory 
without any legal effect? I'm not saying that's a reason it can't be 
approved (that's up to OSI), I just think we need to be clear about it's 
value and role.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
4641 Post St.
Unit 4316
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal
www.chesteklegal.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250928/65410f45/attachment.htm>