[License-review] License Committee Report - January 2017
Tzeng, Nigel H.
Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu
Mon Jan 9 17:38:17 UTC 2017
Well, at the time my OSI membership was paid up and I voted yes. :)
Given that the original recommendation to the board was for approval I
think that the consensus then was for approval until your dissenting vote.
Again, I don¹t think you have made the case to others that NOSA is not OSD
compliant. Given that you will attend the meeting and be able to make
your case there where the other members will not my preference is to let
the original 2013 consensus for approval stand.
As a note, Mr. Geurts has not been getting emails from the list despite
thinking he was still subscribed. I gave him a call to make sure that
NASA was still interested and they most certainly are.
Mr Karan? Any thoughts on NOSA? Yea/nay? Any comments from ARL lawyers
regarding the issues brought up by Mr. Fontana?
On 1/9/17, 11:29 AM, "License-review on behalf of Richard Fontana"
<license-review-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of
fontana at opensource.org> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 08:08:26AM -0800, Josh berkus wrote:
>> On 01/08/2017 07:52 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
>> > NASA Open Source Agreeement 2.0
>> > ===============================
>> > Recommendation: Reject.
>> Huh? According to our prior discussion on this list, you said you'd
>> pass along to the board that your reject opinion was in the minority,
>> and what the dissent was. I don't see any of that at all.
>The 'Recommendations' here are just my own recommendations. I will
>pass on to the board that no one else has recommended 'reject'.
>While I am sure my reject opinion is "in the minority" in the sense
>that there is no consensus of opinion out there in favor of rejection,
>I don't think there is a consensus in favor of approval either. My
>guess is that most people subscribing to and reading this list have
>not attempted to read the license and have no particular opinion about
>I'm willing to have an Apache-style mailing list consensus vote (and
>adopt that approach for other licenses going forward) if that's what
>others want, in which case I am -1 on approval of NOSA 2.0.
>License-review mailing list
>License-review at opensource.org
More information about the License-review