[License-review] NOSA 2.0 and Government licensing [was: moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]]

[Nigel T]

> On 6/20/18, 11:02 AM, "License-review on behalf of Bruce Perens" <mailto:
license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org on behalf of mailto:
bruce at perens.com> wrote:



>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 6:07 AM, Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)
<mailto:cem.f.karan.civ at mail.mil> wrote:



>> In terms of the NOSA 2.0 license, the goal is to support the OSD despite
not having copyright attached to most US government works within US
jurisdiction.



> Simply having the software be in the public domain and available in
source-code form is sufficient to comply with the OSD, if you don't attempt
to add contractual terms.



You have deliberately ignored all the concerns of GOSS developers listed by
Cem in the past and handwaved them away.  Bravo.



Also, while public domain may or may not meet the OSD it obviously isn't
defined as Open Source by the OSI as JOSS refuses to accept public domain
submissions.  While this isn't of importance to me it is to other GOSS
developers.



https://opensource.org/node/878


And public domain may not be public domain somewhere else.


>>would OSI (or anyone else) be willing to indemnify the US Government, and
all downstream users, against any OSI-approved license being declared fully
null and void solely because the license had copyright clauses in it that
were declared invalid because the covered work didn't have copyright
attached?



> What would we be indemnifying the US Government for? A good many of us
are U.S. citizens and the software is our property. The horse is already
out of the barn in that copyright law doesn't protect it. NASA has seen fit
to discard its trade-secret protection and any protection applicable to
government secrets. Having discarded these things, there is no obligation
transmissible from the first licensee to the second.



The question of indemnity comes up because you poo-poo the concerns of
government lawyers and agencies as unimportant or not required.  If this is
a true statement then indemnifying someone of something that isn't, in your
opinion and why you block GOSS licenses, a real problem should be a
no-brainer.



> The solution for public-domain material is to simply leave it in the
public domain.



Which does not meet the concerns of GOSS developers nor OSI guidance:



"Thus we recommend that you always apply an approved Open Source license to
software you are releasing,"



https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain


On the subject of NOSA, there isn't even an issue with proliferation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180620/1f003912/attachment.html>