[License-review] For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement 2.0

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

I have a few questions regarding NOSA 2.0:

    *  Can you explain to me the implications of section 2.A in comparison
to 2.B?  NOSA 1.3 only had the equivalent to the new 2.B.

    *  3.A.1 is an interesting addition.  Could you provide some
background regarding the inclusion?  Also your opinion on how this plays
with FAR clause 52.227-14 or DFARS clauses 252.227-7013/7014.

    *  Regarding a mixture of NOSA 1.3 and NOSA 2.0 code.  Notices in the
source files have no indication of license, just agency copyright.  Are
there any requirements on derivative works to further identify which is
which even when no changes have been made to the original code?  Changing
Section 3.C to indicate the license version in addition to copyright would
be helpful for some downstream users if there are.

    *  Does 2.A wording regarding "portions of the Subject Software"
coupled with the new 3.C civil servant copyright notice imply that we
would expect to see this copyright header on a source file basis?
 

    *  Are current NOSA 1.3 projects expected to transition to NOSA 2.0
quickly assuming OSI approval?


Thanks.

On 7/9/13 1:38 AM, "Luis Villa" <luis at lu.is> wrote:

>On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Josh Berkus <josh at postgresql.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I have to wonder: what does "request" mean in terms of a license?
>> It seems like it's saying "if you want to", which means that that clause
>> 3.K. is without real force, but I'd like to hear an attorney tell us
>> what "request" means in legalese.
>
>It would be ideal to have Bryan answer this in the context of NASA,
>but in the meantime, I know of no precedent where "request" would have
>anything other than the plain language meaning you'd expect it to
>have. That would be doubly so in this context, which is described as
>part of an "effort" rather than a requirement or obligation, and uses
>"please" in the opening section.
>
>Bryan, I'm trying to understand the interaction between 2(A) and 2(B)
>and was hoping you could answer. Specifically, is the idea that 2(A)
>covers works covered by 17 USC 105, while 2(B) covers anything not
>covered by 17 USC 105?
>
>Anyone else have any concerns/thoughts/etc. about the license?
>
>Luis
>_______________________________________________
>License-review mailing list
>License-review at opensource.org
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review