[License-review] NOSA 2.0 - 'Up or Down' vote
dialogpurpose at gmail.com
Tue Jan 10 10:56:05 UTC 2017
You all are taking about NOSA, which is probably one of the worst open
source licene out there, but none of u talk about or review my license
On Monday, January 9, 2017, Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:
> Is there a link to the most recent version of this license (I think it was
> modified during the submission process)?
> If there is a patent license requirement to downstream contributors but
> not the original upstream author, I too would likely express reservations*,
> but that gap was not immediately apparent to me from the draft that was
> originally posted.
> Alternatively, is there a link to the part of the thread where this
> particular issue was addressed and where the portions of the text that
> created the problem or ambiguity were highlighted?
> *I have become of the opinion that the lack of an express patent license
> in an open source license is potentially a violation of OSD 7, although
> that opinion is inconsistent with the OSI-approved status of several
> existing licenses. Even if it is not a violation of OSD 7, I believe as a
> matter of practice, it is something that should be a feature of any new
> licenses approved by OSI.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2017 7:10 PM
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> Subject: Re: [License-review] NOSA 2.0 - 'Up or Down' vote
> Responding here to Josh Berkus's message:
> > On 01/05/2017 12:57 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > > If anyone has comments on NOSA 2.0 that they'd like the OSI board to
> > > consider please provide them before next Wednesday.
> > Can we have the issues withe the NOSA, in detail, doc'd somewhere?
> > Right now they're spread out over 3 years of email discussion
> > comments. I doubt the submitter is clear on the problems with the
> > license, either, which makes it hard for them to resolve them.
> > I think NOSA really shows how a mailing list is not adequate to the
> > kinds of license discussions we need to have these days.
> I never made a full list. What happened was I'd periodically wade through
> the license text and find issues I hadn't seen before, and over time I
> developed the general view that the license was just too confusingly
> A big issue for me was that I believe under a fair reading of the license
> it seemed to exempt the original licensor (which will presumably typically
> be NASA) from patent licensing obligations imposed on licensees. This can
> be seen as yet another example of a concern about a possible legal
> asymmetry in the license (cf. the discussion of the UCL from a couple of
> months ago). I was not satisfied by Bryan's response to this. Of course it
> is possible that this was just a (significant) drafting error.
> License-review mailing list
> License-review mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review