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

[Bruce Perens]

Mark,

Thank you very much for re-engaging. I am looking forward to hearing your
discussion and explanations. I hope you and the group are open to the
possibility of re-drafting. Besides the issues on which you can enlighten
us, I believe that an increase in clarity of the actual license document is
possible.

Many Thanks

Bruce Perens
License Committee Member
Standards Chair

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018, 10:46 AM Dvorscak, Mark P. (HQ-MC000) <
mark.p.dvorscak at nasa.gov> wrote:

> 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>
> 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 on behalf of 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> 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
>
>
>
> *in a personal capacity*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> 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/20180430/2f0a2d0c/attachment-0001.html>