[License-review] Fwd: [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA 2.0

[Dvorscak, Mark P. (HQ-MC000)]

Good afternoon all,

Apologies for the delay in responding to the questions posed by OSI related to NASA’s request for approval of NOSA 2.0 We have had some internal software policy issues that needed attention and took priority. I have asked Rob Padilla, who leads our Open Source Software legal team, to re-engage with you on the outstanding issues. You can expect Rob to provide explanations and answer the questions posed. Please continue to copy Bryan Geurts and myself on future correspondence with Rob.

Thank you for your consideration of our request, and we look forward to resolution of the remaining issues.

Regards,
Mark Dvorscak


Mark P. Dvorscak
Agency Counsel for Intellectual Property
Office of General Counsel
NASA
O (202) 358-0646
C  (202) 308-4337


From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:13 PM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Cc: Padilla, Rob (ARC-DL) <robert.m.padilla at nasa.gov>; Geurts, Bryan A. (GSFC-1401) <bryan.a.geurts at nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [License-review] Fwd: [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA 2.0

> and that they may not fully or correctly understand the complexities and requirements on the USG as understood by USG lawyers

I am not admitted to the Bar and am likely to miss some issues. When that is the problem, we would like to see those things explained.

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu<mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>> wrote:
As long as the experts from the open source community understands that this is a special purpose license for the USG and that they may not fully or correctly understand the complexities and requirements on the USG as understood by USG lawyers that seems useful.

I see no need to make NOSA a general purpose reusable license for anyone outside of the USG (i.e. “works for everyone”).  There is a special purpose license category for a reason.  This point seems completely lost on opponents of any movement forward by the Government Open Source Software community.

Code.gov is moving along and frankly, having a large catalog of code under the government-wide reuse category fulfills a large portion of the needs of government.  Making it harder to go to the next step and open sourcing the code seems counterproductive.


On 3/13/18, 10:53 AM, "License-review on behalf of Simon Phipps" <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> on behalf of simon at webmink.com<mailto:simon at webmink.com>> wrote:

Bruce:  Thanks for all the time you have invested in this.

Bryan:  I concur with Bruce and also hope you'll take the comments on textual complexity into account. I would suggest that in addition to attorneys you retain an expert in open source community matters from outside NASA (in fact from outside US government circles generally) to assist with review. I am sure members of this list can make recommendations if you need them.

Best regards

Simon

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com<mailto:bruce at perens.com>> wrote:
Hi Bryan,
I reviewed the NASA Open Source Agreement about 20 days ago. I have continued to develop my understanding of the license, including from discussion with Nigel and John Cowan. I could do a third pass of review based on my improved understanding, but the result would still be that I concur with the OSI board's decision to decline to accept the license as written. I would encourage you to work on 3.0 and to do peer review with other attorneys before submitting it, but I'm eager to see 3.0 and hope that you can arrive at a license that works for everyone.
    Thanks
    Bruce Perens


--
Simon Phipps  http://webmink.com<http://webmink.com/>

in a personal capacity

_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
License-review at lists.opensource.org<mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180430/fdc550ca/attachment.html>