NASA Open Source Agreement v1.3

Tzeng, Nigel H. Nigel.Tzeng at
Thu Apr 28 20:06:15 UTC 2011


The largest obstacle to contributions at the moment, at least respect to
WorldWind, is that the Java repositories are closed and the .NET
repository mostly dead.

The community could maintain an external repository that shadows the
nightly drops but thus far there hasn't been enough interest to do so.  If
someone did that, then it might be could be as simple as
providing a script to automate SVN to GIT conversion every night as
opposed to generating the zip file they currently make.  There's a dead
version of this somewhere on github.

Rewording NOSA would make it less confusing and perhaps resolve any
incorrect perceptions but I don't think that it would materially change
the amount of community participation. :)  If that's your goal then a
really cool WWJ community project would be more effective unless you
really believe that no one is building a open source Google Earth program
on WWJ strictly because of NOSA.


On 4/28/11 3:49 PM, "Jeremy Wright" <wrightjmf at> wrote:

>Thanks for the reply Nigel.
>I'm not trying to stir the pot right now, but I'm sure my questions
>make it seem that way. The reason I'm asking is that there was a
>suggestion on NASA's IdeaScale site that the NOSA should be revised to
>make it "more free".
>As I looked around, I noticed that at least some Linux distributions
>like Debian have World Wind (which is released under the NOSA) in
>their non-free repositories. Whether or not this is an accurate view
>of the NOSA license, my concern is that it could create a barrier to
>keep some open source developers from contributing to NOSA licensed
>My overall motivation for trying to understand this is that I'm
>interested in being more involved in NASA's open source efforts, and
>I'm trying to get a handle on the current state of things. It would be
>nice to weigh in on the "NOSA revision" idea on IdeaScale, but I'm
>hesitant to until I really grasp the implications of the NOSA license.
>On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H.
><Nigel.Tzeng at> wrote:
>> There has never been a problem with combined works and NOSA to my
>> knowledge.  There are many projects that combine BSD, Apache, LGPL and
>> NOSA code.  This is clearly stated in:
>> 3.I. A Recipient may create a Larger Work by combining Subject Software
>> with separate software not governed by the terms of this agreement and
>> distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such case, the
>> Recipient must make sure Subject Software, or portions thereof,
>> included in the Larger Work is subject to this Agreement.
>> I've been a commiter on NOSA projects that include 3rd party open source
>> code so even 3.G doesn't restrict the ability to modify the core code
>> third party open source software not of your creation so long as the
>> license is less restrictive than NOSA (aka permissive licenses).  Folks
>> have taken NOSA code and clearly forked it as a derived MPL project with
>> NASA's blessings then added lots of 3rd party code.
>> If "free" software "depends" on "combining" code from third parties then
>> most copyleft licenses aren't "free" software either since I can't
>> two copylefts either under the FSF interpretation of derivative works.
>> GPL is far more restrictive on that score than NOSA is on a practical
>> level.
>> Are you stirring the pot or are you actually looking at using some NOSA
>> code?
>> Nigel
>> On 4/28/11 9:50 AM, "Jeremy Wright" <wrightjmf at> wrote:
>>>I searched the archive, but couldn't find this topic elsewhere.
>>>It's my understanding that the OSI has approved version 1.3 of the
>>>NASA Open Source Agreement (NOSA), but the FSF (Free Software
>>>Foundation) has a problem with section 3, paragraph G of the license.
>>>The issue that the FSF cites is as follows:
>>>"The NASA Open Source Agreement, version 1.3, is not a free software
>>>license because it includes a provision requiring changes to be your
>>>³original creation². Free software development depends on combining
>>>code from third parties, and the NASA license doesn't permit this."
>>>Does this mean that the OSI and FSF disagree on the interpretation of
>>>section 3-G, or is the ability to include third party software not an
>>>OSI requirement for an open source license? I couldn't find any
>>>specific mention to the inclusion of third party code in the Open
>>>Source Definition, so I wanted to clarify.
>>>Here's a link to the NOSA license.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list