<div dir="ltr">Nigel,<div><br></div><div>I don't have a problem with improving the process. We have a number of proposals so far:<div><br></div><div>1. Use a communication system other than email. The main advantage seems to be better tracking of a discussion. They also have disadvantages. I would at least replace the mailing list archiver software. Pipermail has a strong bias against MIME email which does not fit the times, and archives rich format email horridly.</div><div>2. Use PEP. This appears to be an RFC-like process, and I am not yet clear how it avoids the complaint about the present process, which is that discussion of the proposal on a mailing list seems to be un-trackable or uncomfortable. Python mostly used the python-dev mailing list.</div><div>3. Get more lawyers. I do see lots of lawyers in the discussion, and nobody is keeping out lawyers.</div></div><div><br></div><div> Thanks</div><div><br></div><div> Bruce</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 9:51 AM Tzeng, Nigel H. <<a href="mailto:Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu">Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu</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>
While there were problems with NOSA 2.0 it was an improvement on NOSA 1.3.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But as I said, that ship has sailed and perception is perception. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You can take the observation I provided that the concerns of unfairness are not without merit in intended spirit of hoping the process gets better as opposed to just me grinding old axes...or not.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail-m_2281651779135073706gw_quote" style="border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding-top:6px;font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com" target="_blank">bruce@perens.com</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Sunday, Mar 17, 2019, 11:15 AM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span><a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a> <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>Re: [License-discuss] The pro se license constructor</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div>Oops - sorry about the incorrect Latin.<br>
<br>
Nigel, if lawyers all agreed there would be no need for courts. OSI had it's own counsel arguing against elements of NOSA, and there were other such counsel on the list. While I have only been participating for a year, I saw significant problems in the license
and concurred with the OSI representative. My feedback from discussion with real NASA users is that they don't like the license either.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Thanks</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Bruce<br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar 17, 2019, 07:05 Tzeng, Nigel H. <<a href="mailto:Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu" target="_blank">Nigel.Tzeng@jhuapl.edu</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>Again, speaking only for myself, but I find it interesting that the need for legal review is considered so important but when a practicing IP lawyer in a specific domain claims that certain license constructs are required to meet the required regulations
for a governmental agency that laypersons can simply say “Nope” and that’s pretty much the end of that.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I guess that ship has sailed and I should simply just drop it in the interest of harmony but if there is soul searching to be done by the OSI then it would be wise to consider why it appears that the current state of affairs on license approval is perceived
to be unfair.<br>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail-m_2281651779135073706m_-3458998118240915274gw_quote" style="border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding-top:6px;font-size:14px">
<div><b>From: </b><span>Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bruce@perens.com</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Date: </b><span>Friday, Mar 15, 2019, 4:32 PM</span></div>
<div><b>To: </b><span><a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a> <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>></span></div>
<div><b>Subject: </b><span>[License-discuss] The per se license constructor</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">While we are discussing license approval, this morning's submission had no legal review, the excuse being that it was a mashup of what was presumably the work of unidentified lawyers.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is great danger in using a license that has had no legal review, since you have little idea of how it will work in court. The per se license constructor transmits that danger to others who use their license.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I thus feel all such things should be rejected, although the reason is entirely outside of the OSD.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Thanks</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Bruce</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>