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

[Nigel T]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

Cem mentioned that he discussed these concerns at length in the past.  If
you are unaware of what the concerns are then how can you be so
declaratively insistent in your assertions that they can just leave code in
the public domain?


>
>> 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.
>

It's not necessarily in the public domain in all jurisdictions.  This is
one of the concerns that Cem and others have covered in the past.

That you have joined the process late is not a requirement for THEM to
bring you up to speed but for you to educate yourself on the topic before
making pronouncements from on high of what is or is not necessary for
GOSS.  In any case, I believe that Cem has posted the link to the GitHub
discussions while you have been here where he covers many of the same
topics if you find looking through the list archives too onerous.

Here are a few:

https://github.com/USArmyResearchLab/ARL-Open-Source-Guidance-and-Instructions
https://github.com/Code-dot-mil/code.mil
https://github.com/openjournals/joss/issues/179

(see his comment on Jan 3, 2017 and subsequent discussions)

You also keep dodging the point that one of your primary concerns of
license proliferation does not apply in the case of NOSA.  It would be
legitimate to ask for a single federal open source license agreement to
address public domain issues but until that happens it is my opinion that
iterating on existing licenses to make them better is a good thing.
Getting multiple federal government entities to agree on anything takes a
long time.

Whatever your opinion NOSA 1.3 IS open source and NOSA 2.0 addresses some
of the concerns that license committee had in the past.  Blocking NOSA 2.0
for terms in NOSA 1.3 doesn't improve anything for anyone.

You also keep implying that NOSA is my license.  It's not.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180620/5e185d88/attachment.html>