[License-review] Outstanding license submissions

Wed Mar 16 18:01:27 UTC 2016

Hi Richard,

It's me again - the squeaky wheel, trying to get the NOSA 2.0 license approval greased.  At this point, I honestly don't know what to do.  I had great hopes when you again began moving things forward last month (even if it was extremely frustrating to have you begin again de novo your review of NOSA 2.0 after two years of consideration).  However, that hope has been in vain (again) as the only comments you made were simply not substantive in nature and do not merit a response.  (For example, "COMMENT: I have the feeling that the attempted comprehensiveness of this definition leads to problems."  What problems?)  While I am of a mood to rant a bit, I will try to refrain while helping you understand what is going on in my mind and the minds of the NASA Agency wide legal team of OSS practitioners that wrote NOSA 2.0 and desperately want to see it approved by OSI.

1.    We are frustrated because the ten NASA Field Centers have collectively dozens of OSS packages that have not yet been released to the public because NOSA 2.0 has not yet been approved by OSI.  This includes important software that has applications in numerous science and technical communities, all of which are deprived of the benefit of this software because of a license.  Moreover, we have numerous NASA scientists and engineers who are becoming disenchanted with the process of releasing OSS to the public and consequently are withdrawing their cooperation as we work through the release process.

2.    We are wondering if the OSI approval process is worth the effort.  We have been responsive to every inquiry and comment that needed a reply, and yet we appear to be in the same place we were two years ago when we started the process.  While OSI approval is desirable, perhaps we need to rethink our approach.  Ironically, the first time we sought and received approval for NOSA 1.3 the entire approval process only took a few weeks.  Pardon the pun, but his is NOT rocket science!

3.    We are wondering if there is a reason certain OSI board members appear to be against the approval of NOSA 2.0.  How else can the stonewalling and feet dragging be explained?  The fact that there has been no up-down vote by the board in two years (at least to my knowledge) is telling.  If this is the case, we would welcome an open and frank conversation about the issues.

4.    We are wondering about the standard of review for the approval process.  Of course, the basic standard is the Open Source Definition, which we have scrupulously adhered to in crafting NOSA 2.0.  (I note here that the very few comments that were made based upon the OSD standard were made early in this two year process and were successfully addressed.)  Most of the comments, especially recent comments, seem to be stylistic in nature.  Is the literary merit of NOSA 2.0 really what is holding it up?

I apologize; I recognize that this turning into something of a rant after all.  But if it serves the purpose of helping you to understand our frustration in the approval process taking two years, with seemingly little or no progress, then I am satisfied.

Please, please, please help me understand what we need to do to move this forward.  Or if it's just not worth it, please let me know that too.

Bryan

________________________________________
From: Richard Fontana <fontana at opensource.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2016 3:11 PM
To: Bryan Geurts
Cc: License submissions for OSI review
Subject: Re: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions

Bryan,

I have begun going through NOSA 2.0 and commenting on some issues. I
have (re)subscribed you to the list, but here are a few posts I've
already made:

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-February/002716.html
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-February/002717.html
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2016-February/002718.html

On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:47:56PM +0000, Bryan Geurts wrote:
> Thanks Richard. We would love to hear your idea. The sooner the better
> Bryan
>
> Sent from Outlook Mobile
>
> _____________________________
> From: Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 10:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions
> To: Bryan Geurts <superbag22 at hotmail.com>
> Cc: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
>
>
> Hi Bryan,
>
> Apologies. I have an idea about how to make some progress with this. No
> begging necessary!
>
> Richard
>
>
> On 2016-02-02 17:55, Bryan Geurts wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > We are still waiting. In a couple months it will be two years since
> > NASA first submitted NOSA 2.0 for certification. How can we help
> > facilitate the process? At this point we are willing to about
> > anything, including collectively getting onto our knees and begging,
> > if that would help.
> >
> > Please advise.
> >
> > Bryan
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Richard Fontana <fontana at sharpeleven.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 10:07 AM
> > To: License submissions for OSI review
> > Cc: superbag22 at hotmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions
> >
> > Hi Bryan,
> >
> > No other than that this is weighing heavily on my mind. I just need to
> > set aside some time to prepare a full set of comments on the license
> > text (which might not be extensive).
> >
> > Regarding your earlier message, I don't think a conference call is
> > needed at this stage, but once I prepare said full set of comments we
> > can see where things stand.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 03:49:27PM +0000, Bryan Geurts wrote:
> >> The NASA OS team is meeting this afternoon. Is there any update I can
> >> provide
> >> regarding the NOSA 2.0 certification?
> >> Bryan
> >>
> >> Sent from Outlook
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:36 PM -0700, "Bryan Geurts"
> >> <superbag22 at hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Has there been any action taken on the NOSA 2.0 yet? We at NASA
> >> continue
> >> to anxiously await approval. If I remember correctly, we first
> >> submitted it
> >> for approval about two years ago.
> >>
> >> Bryan Geurts
> >>
> >> > Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 23:47:06 -0400
> >> > From: fontana at opensource.org
> >> > To: license-review at opensource.org
> >> > Subject: [License-review] Outstanding license submissions
> >> >
> >> > Hi license-review,
> >> >
> >> > There are a number of licenses that have been submitted for approval
> >> > that have fallen through the cracks. What that number is is
> >> > debatable.
> >> >
> >> > 1. It is agreed by everyone, I think, that the NASA Open Source
> >> > Agreement 2.0 was properly formally submitted (more than once, in
> >> > fact).
> >> >
> >> > I intend to post something separately about this one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2. I went back and looked at the archives of license-review (from the
> >> > point of this list's hosting on opensource.org, i.e. late 2011). I
> >> > believe that each of the following was arguably a formal request for
> >> > OSI approval, with no indication that there was anything formally
> >> > lacking in the submission, yet I don't think any of these was
> >> > acknowledged by the OSI as having been formally submitted and I
> >> > believe no decision was ever made on any of them. Some of these,
> >> > particularly the earlier ones, were seen at the time as part of a
> >> > troubling wave of "crayon licenses". For at least one or two, it is
> >> > likely that the license submitter gave up, not having the tenacity of,
> >> > say, Messrs. Geurts or Wright.
> >> >
> >> > Forget Me Not License
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-January/
> >> 000072.html
> >> >
> >> > Svoboda
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-May/
> 000416.html
> >> >
> >> > No Nonsense Open Source License
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-June/
> 000441.html
> >> >
> >> > APL AROS Public License
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-July/
> 000451.html
> >> >
> >> > Symisc Public License
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-September/
> >> 000484.html
> >> >
> >> > "BSD-based anti-patent license"
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-February/
> >> 000522.html
> >> >
> >> > Modular Open Software License 'working draft 5'
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-March/
> >> 000547.html
> >> >
> >> > Public Software License
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/
> >> 000750.html
> >> >
> >> > Russian Permissive Free Software License
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-March/
> >> 000758.html
> >> >
> >> > eCos License version 2.0
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2014-August/
> >> 000853.html
> >> >
> >> > GG License 1.0
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2015-January/
> >> 000968.html
> >> >
> >> > I am not including here license submissions that I believe it is
> >> > fairly clear were withdrawn from consideration by the submitter.
> >> >
> >> > You might argue that several of these were not really worth extensive
> >> > review, but a clear decision ought to have been made nonetheless, and
> >> > in any case that view can't apply to *all* of the license submissions
> >> > in this set.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 3. Really Old license submissions found by Engel Nyst:
> >> > (see http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2013-November
> /
> >> 000733.html )
> >> >
> >> > Zope Public License 2.1
> >> > http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07517.html
> >> >
> >> > wxWidgets (name change of wxWindows)
> >> > http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07542.html
> >> >
> >> > W3C Software License and Notice (2002 version)
> >> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general/834
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I am not sure how exhaustive Engel Nyst's research was but I have to
> >> > wonder whether there were other lost license approval requests from
> >> > the 2005-2011 period.
> >> >
> >> > I am not sure what if anything we should do about all of these, other
> >> > than NOSA 2.0 which clearly requires a decision by the board for the
> >> > very patient Mr. Geurts. If perchance anyone reading this was
> >> > associated with one of the listed license submissions, by all means
> >> > please indicate whether you wish to revive review of the license in
> >> > question.
> >> >
> >> > Is there anything we should do to take better care of license approval
> >> > submissions? It was suggested a while back that we consider using an
> >> > issue tracker for all license approval requests.
> >> >
> >> > Richard
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > License-review mailing list
> >> > License-review at opensource.org
> >> > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> License-review mailing list
> >> License-review at opensource.org
> >> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
>