[License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Re: License Committee Report - January 2017
Geurts, Bryan A. (GSFC-1401)
bryan.a.geurts at nasa.gov
Mon Jan 9 20:52:08 UTC 2017
Thanks Cem. Yes, that is the intention.
Bryan A. Geurts
Chief Patent Counsel
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Code 140.1, 8800 Greenbelt Road
Greenbelt, MD 20771
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.
From: Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) [mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 3:46 PM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
Cc: Geurts, Bryan A. (GSFC-1401) <bryan.a.geurts at nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [License-review] License Committee Report - January 2017
I've passed the information along to our in-house counsel that is working the issues, along with my own questions regarding how the license would apply.
Bryan, I'm trying to keep Guy Miller up to date on everything, but you might want to talk to him directly.
As for the license, it feels like it is a GPL-like license; is that what it was intended to be?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Tzeng, Nigel H.
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 12:38 PM
> 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] License Committee Report - January 2017
> 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.
> 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 it.
> >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
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 8023 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the License-review