[License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA 2.0 (UNCLASSIFIED)

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED

My apologies for the late reply, but I found out from a coworker of mine that Bryan's email was wrong.  I've corrected it in the this email.  

Bruce, did you ever get a bounce from the email you were using?

Thanks,
Cem Karan

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Perens [mailto:bruce at perens.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2018 4:38 PM
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org; Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US) <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>; brian.a.geurts at nasa.gov
Subject: Fwd: [License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA 2.0

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. 


________________________________



I did not get any reply from NASA when I first sent this, in early December.


    Thanks


    Bruce


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com < Caution-mailto:bruce at perens.com > >
Date: Fri, Dec 8, 2017, 21:39
Subject: Re: [License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA 2.0
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org < Caution-mailto:license-review at opensource.org > >, <cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil < Caution-mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil > >, <bryan.a.geurts at nasa.gov < Caution-mailto:bryan.a.geurts at nasa.gov > >



> Could you (meaning you and the board) please give us a breakdown of what the issues were?  

and

> If we resubmit, will we be engaged or simply ignored, as before?


I didn't see any public response to these questions. I am not a member of the OSI board, but I am the creator of the Open Source Definition. As a member of the license review committee (admission being equivalent to being granted a subscription to this mailing list) I would be willing to look at a new submission and make a recommendation.



I think the missing piece in your previous submissions is that they were not a good deal for the Open Source developer community, only a license engineered to grant maximal protection to NASA. The board cited legal ambiguities in their response, these are of course to the disadvantage of the community. Individual developers do not have the easy access to counsel and the legal budget that NASA has, and it's an even worse day for them when they are sued. To give a personal example, my recent participation in an Open-source-related lawsuit will probably exceed my year's income in legal fees. So, I believe that both NASA and OSI should place the individual developer's protection before that of NASA if we are all to pursue Open Source fairly.



In addition, the language in 1.3 that prevents combination of Open Source that is not an original work of authorship of the contributor seems to me to be inimical to the concept of Open Source. I would not have recommended its approval. I would be especially interested in seeing a submission that removed that language.



    Thanks


    Bruce

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED