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

[Bruce Perens]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:48 AM, Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> You have deliberately ignored all the concerns of GOSS developers listed
> by Cem in the past
>

No, I don't think I have this list. Remember, I did not participate in the
submission of the license, but joined the process late.


> 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.
>

But this doesn't apply to NASA, is it would be releasing the software under
a license, which would use copyright terms to grant permissions for the
entire work.

It's not this grant that concerns us, but the application of contractual
terms to "a horse already out of the barn" because it's in the public
domain.

The question of indemnity comes up because you poo-poo the concerns of
> government lawyers and agencies as unimportant or not required.
>

In the case of public domain material, yes.


> 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.
>

 I am happy to accept NASA's declination of warranty regarding that public
domain software. Having me or OSI indemnify NASA is absurd, and posed only
as a discussion device.


-- 
Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder,
Open Source Initiative
President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom
Initiative.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180620/ccb853e5/attachment.html>