[License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?

[Pamela Chestek]

On 3/2/2020 2:04 PM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via
License-discuss wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 29, 2020 2:07 PM
>> To: mccoy at lexpan.law; license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>> Cc: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>
>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:25 PM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA)
>>>>> <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 12:39 PM
>>>>> To: mccoy at lexpan.law; license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>>>> Subject: RE: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Resources to discourage governments from bespoke licenses?
>>>>> Hmmm... OK, I remember that a NOSA 3.0 was being drafted at one time, and I know it got put up on the list.  Does anyone want me
>> to go poke at the NASA lawyers to see if they'll push on NOSA 3.0 >>again?  Alternatively, does anyone want to push on Congress to do
>> something about copyright law so that the US Government can use the standard, already approved licenses?
>>> Are you sure about that?  I've scanned the archives and don't see anything about a NOSA 3.0.  Just about 2.0. And 2.0 was never
>> approved; the only approved version is 1.3.  The last discussion on NOSA 2.0 was around June of 2018.
>>
>> My recollection is that the NASA lawyer mentioned working on a NOSA
>> 3.0 but this version was never submitted for OSI approval and I'm not aware of it being used publicly. I think the various version numbers
>> of NOSA are getting confused in this and other recent threads.
> Yes, I'm sorry for causing confusion.  I was talking the NASA guys a fair amount a couple of years back about NOSA 3.0 which was supposed to address issues with 1.3 and 2.0, but I think that as Nigel has explained, they just plain got tired of trying (and I got the versions mixed up in my mind).  The law is quite clear that US Government works do not have copyright within the US.  I think that there are other conditions that affect the Government, but not private citizens, which were also supposed to be addressed in NOSA 3.0, but I'm not sure about that (both because it's been a long time, and because I'm not a lawyer, so don't remember the details).  Given that, the NOSA licenses are a good idea for Government Open Source Software (GOSS).  
>
> That said, I am willing to talk with NASA about submitting whichever version of NOSA they have (2.0 or 3.0) provided all of the following are true:
>
> - All critique of the licenses have clear, actionable steps towards correction, or if there is no way to correct the deficiency, a clear explanation of what the issue is, and why it can't be corrected.
> - That the entire process from initial submission to final voting take no more than 90 days.  Formal rejection is fine by me, but I'd like it to be clear that it is rejected, rather than just ignored.
>
> Is this acceptable to everyone?  Does everyone want me to talk with NASA?
Hi Cem,

I can't promise the timing, but the instructions for license review do
describe process and the goal for the length of pendency.
https://opensource.org/approval That's the process we'll follow for any
license submitted.

As to critique, the difficulty is that the review is done collaborative
and people express their individual opinions, but you can't really tell
what is something that the OSI Board considers an issue and what it
doesn't. Personally I wait to see all the viewpoints before I reach my
own conclusion and I'm sure other Board members are the same. So the
process may involve some crystal ball reading on the part of the
drafters, trying to figure out what criticisms need to be addressed and
which can be ignored. I would say if it's an unintended loophole or
vagueness, then it's always good practice to revise it so that the
document is as clear and accurate as possible. Sometimes it's a matter
of the license submitter explaining where someone has misunderstood the
license. If it's a philosophical disagreement, that's going to depend on
what the issue is and whether it's something that the drafters can and
are willing to change.

After the review period, the License Committee makes a recommendation to
the full Board in a very complete rationale document. You can see two
examples, one not recommending approval of the first version of the CAL
license here:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-June/004248.html
and the second approving the second version here:
http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-February/004660.html
The full Board then votes on the recommendation. A rationale document
not approving the license is going to be the best way to understand what
would need to be addressed in a resubmission.

Van Lindberg might be able to help you navigate the process; he just
went through it with the CAL license and I suspect it was a learning
process for him. He can probably give you some tips.

Pam

Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative