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

Thu Feb 22 00:49:41 UTC 2018

Hi Bryan,

My general impression in the past has been that NASA has been unwilling to
consider making changes to NOSA 2.0. If you are willing to submit a revised
draft that:
* is written with a view to maximizing clarity and comprehensibility,
particularly for individual software developers
* takes care not to give, or have the appearance of giving, special legal
privileges to NASA over other licensors and licensees (or else to give a
clear justification to us of why that sort of structure is necessary) then
I think we can make progress, perhaps rapid progress, towards approval.

Richard

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Geurts, Bryan A. (GSFC-1401) <
bryan.a.geurts at nasa.gov> wrote:

> All,
>
>
>
> I am just now seeing this after having been out over the long weekend, so
> apologies for a slow response.  We at NASA are very pleased to have someone
> finally express a willingness to work with us on certifying NOSA 2.0!
> Apologies that I didn’t respond to Bruce’s December email, but, in looking
> back over my emails from that period, I couldn’t find it.  Believe me, we
> at NASA are more than ready to engage any and all interested parties in
> order to come to a resolution; whatever you need, we will provide as
> quickly as possible.  As you know, NASA first applied for certification
> nearly five years ago and has been baffled by a lack of action on the part
> of OSI ever since.  We responded to every comment from the license-review
> group as well as from the OSI license-review coordinator (Richard Fontana),
> but nothing has come of it so far.  In all honesty, we are now discussing
> the need to upgrade from NOSA 2.0 to NOSA 3.0, but that’s a discussion for
> another day, assuming we can get approval for 2.0 in short order.  Nigel
> Tzeng at AFL (below), Cem Karan at ARL, and others have been vocal
> advocates for NOSA 2.0 (many thanks to them) as some of the many persons
> and organizations, in particular government organizations, in need of the
> unique application of an open source license tailored for government
> created works.  From a legal perspective, government works are in a
> different category than other software because of a section of the US
> Copyright Statute (17 USC 105), which precludes the US federal government
> from creating works covered by a US copyright (foreign copyrights are
> allowed, as are copyrights assigned or licensed to the government).  Since
> copyright is the core legal theory under which open source software
> licenses operate, special accommodations must be made if government created
> works are to be protectable at all.  The NOSA is all about those special
> accommodations for government works; no other OSD compliant license
> addresses these issues.  NOSA 1.3, approved well over a decade ago, is
> admittedly a bit klunky by today’s standards, but represents a huge step
> forward for the times; NOSA 2.0 is several steps closer to the “mainstream”
> OSI-approved licenses.  Both licenses were designed to be fully compliant
> with the OSD.
>
>
>
> Please help me understand the next step forward.  We have an open source
> legal team at NASA that wrote both NOSA 1.3 and 2.0, that meets regularly
> and is anxious to address any concerns.  We are happy to engage by email,
> by phone or even in person if that will move the process forward.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bryan
>
>
>
> *Bryan A. Geurts*
>
> Chief Patent Counsel
>
> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
>
> Code 140.1, 8800 Greenbelt Road
>
> Greenbelt, MD 20771
>
> Phone:  301-286-7352 <(301)%20286-7352>
>
> Fax:  301-286-9502 <(301)%20286-9502>
>
>
>
> 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:* Tzeng, Nigel H. [mailto:Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 20, 2018 9:43 AM
> *To:* License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.
> opensource.org>; cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil; Geurts, Bryan A. (GSFC-1401) <
> bryan.a.geurts at nasa.gov>
> *Subject:* Re: [License-review] Fwd: [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA
> 2.0
>
>
>
> Bruce,
>
>
>
> There was no reply on license review because you didn’t send it to either
> license review or Bryan.
>
>
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_
> lists.opensource.org/2017-December/thread.html
>
>
>
> It’s been over FOUR YEARS since NOSA 2.0 was submitted in June of 2013.
> Maybe you should have asked these questions in 2013 rather than 2017?
>
>
>
> In any case, according to the archive of the license-review lists from
> November 2017 to February 2018, NASA was ignored.  If the board has
> formally rejected the NOSA 2.0 submission in the meantime that’s just
> awesome communication on the lists.
>
>
>
> By blocking the approval of NOSA 2.0 the OSI has blocked the fix for the
> section that you have an issue with in v1.3 (original work of authorship
> clause).  If you were interested in seeing that language removed then you
> should have advocated for approval of NOSA 2.0.
>
>
>
> As I noted in License-Discuss, if one the agencies that has been forward
> thinking and generating GOSS code for public use as part of their strategy
> for nearly two decades under the NOSA license (https://open.nasa.gov and
> https://code.nasa.gov ) and likely has released one of the oldest GOSS/PD
> codebases around (https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11) believes it
> needs to update that license then the OSI shouldn’t continue to be a
> roadblock for improving that *already approved special purpose license *but
> instead be helpful and *responsive*.
>
>
>
> According to Open Nasa they have:
>
>
>
>    - 39,054 Open Data Sets
>    - 356 Open Code Repositories (155 on GitHub under the NASA account)
>    - 41 Open APIs
>
>
>
> I think NASA has met and exceeded any “higher standard” set for Open
> Source and Open Data advocacy and performance.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/16/18, 4:38 PM, "License-review on behalf of Bruce Perens" <
> license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org on behalf of bruce at perens.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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>
> 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>, <
> cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil>, <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180221/e2eb482c/attachment.html>