[License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Re: Submission of the Upstream Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0) for approval

Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil
Tue Nov 29 16:49:38 UTC 2016

+1 on all of Nigel's comments below.

Right now, ARL's Open Source License is stalled internally while waiting for 
comments from higher ups; if NOSA 2.0 was Apache-compatible and OSI approved, 
we could drop the ARL OSL and go with NOSA 2.0 instead.  As it stands, we're 
using a mix of CC0 and contributor license agreements to have the effect we 
want, which isn't ideal.

What was wrong with NOSA 2.0 anyways?

Cem Karan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org] On 
> Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 10:28 AM
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
> Cc: bryan.a.geurts at nasa.gov
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-review] Submission of the Upstream 
> Compatibility License v1.0 (UCL-1.0) for approval
> All active links contained in this email were disabled.  Please verify the 
> identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links
> contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a 
> Web browser.
> ----
> On 11/28/16, 6:43 PM, "License-review on behalf of Richard Fontana"
> <license-review-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of fontana at opensource.org> 
> wrote:
> >Hi Nigel,
> >
> >My general sense of the license-review discussion of the UCL, and this
> >is confirmed for me by re-reading it now, is that opinion was mostly
> >negative, with concerns being expressed about the asymmetrical nature
> >of the license. This matches my personal view of the license. Thus I
> >would recommend against approval.
> >
> >Regarding NOSA 2.0, I'm afraid there has been no change in status. In
> >the short term I would not expect NOSA 2.0 to be approved without
> >substantial revisions, or else convincing justifications of
> >arguably-problematic provisions. However there has been no 'up or down
> >vote'.
> >
> >Richard
> Richard,
> I welcome any discussion on UCL, positive or negative.  I wished to get the 
> ball moving in any direction before investing more effort into
> UCL changes as a private individual.
> Regarding NOSA, I feel that while the Federal Source Code Policy may not 
> survive the current administration that it would behoove the
> OSI to do something to address the fact that a major Fed Gov open source 
> contributor and license steward has asked to update their
> license.  A special purpose license meant to facilitate the open sourcing of 
> US Government developed software that takes into account the
> needs of a federal agency.  We are highly dependent on NOSA licensed code 
> for our flight software and spacecraft testbeds which are
> based on Goddard's Core Flight Executive and I have been a contributor in 
> the past on NASA WorldWind, another NOSA success story.
> I think that 3.5 years (first submitted Jun 7, 2013) is long past the time 
> period where an up or down vote should be taken.
> It may also be useful to get the ball rolling on CC0 approval in case the 
> Federal Source Code Policy survives and a large portion of the code
> released on code.gov is released under a non-OSI approved FOSS license.
> If the policy is set where OSI approval is not required to be considered 
> Open Source by the Federal Government that would probably be
> sub-optimal for the OSI.  I guess this is a topic more suited for 
> license-discuss.
> Regards,
> Nigel
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> Caution-https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5559 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20161129/e2130ac9/attachment.p7s>

More information about the License-review mailing list