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

Thu Jul 11 16:27:45 UTC 2013

Please see below for my comments.

Bryan A. Geurts
Chief Patent Counsel
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Code 140.1, 8800 Greenbelt Road
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Phone:  301-286-7352
Fax:  310-286-9502

This document, including any attachments, contains information that is confidential, protected by the attorney-client or other privileges, or constitutes non-public information.  It is intended only for the intended recipients.  If you are not an intended recipient, please take appropriate steps to destroy this document in its entirety and notify the sender of its destruction.  Use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this information by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

This communication should only be used for the particular matter discussed herein.  Changes in circumstances and changes in law can greatly alter any current legal advice.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 8:51 AM
To: License submissions for OSI review; Geurts, Bryan A. (GSFC-1401)
Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: NASA Open Source Agreement 2.0

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.

I just answered this in a reply to the list, so I won't repeat it here.  Let me know if you didn't see it or if you have any other questions about it.  We added 2.A. to specifically address the situation of civil servant code writers.

    *  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.

The cited FAR and DFAR clauses are exactly the reason for the addition of 3.A.1.  The requirements of an existing contract under the FAR or DFAR are meant to take precedence over the requirements of the NOSA.  For example, if, in fulfillment of a NASA contract, a contractor modifies software governed by the NOSA, it may argue, citing this clause, that under the NOSA it has the right, or even the obligation, to release its contribution under the NOSA.  While in most foreseeable circumstances NASA would agree with that pathway, NASA reserves the right to control that decision per the FAR.

    *  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.

Good point, and one we have not thought through.  Your suggestion may be the best approach.

    *  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?

Yes.  That seems to be the only way to make the distinction between civil servant and non-civil servant contributions.

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

Yes, that is the plan.

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