[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 2:12 PM, Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Nigel T <nigel.2048 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In contrast, the attempt to assert control over the public domain in the
> U.S. by applying contractual terms and terms regarding NASA as a secondary
> beneficiary create legal ambiguity as written, and also establishes a
> really harmful precedent that is damaging for Open Source. We need the
> public domain to be public domain without restrictions, or Open Source
> can't really function. If public domain material is contractually
> restricted, it takes away all potential to for Open Source to interoperate
> with proprietary software. So for us to accept those terms would be
> damaging to all Open Source.
>

You will have to explain how public domain code released under a specific
agreement impacts other public domain code that isn't under the agreement.

Public domain code doesn't have to be released to anyone and an agreement
that allows more release of public domain code as open source is helpful.

You also keep dodging the point that one of your primary concerns of
>> license proliferation does not apply in the case of NOSA.
>>
>
> This is predicated on the Open Source community not actually attempting to
> incorporate the work into anything.  I don't think it's realistic.
>

That is an odd objection.  NOSA 1.3 code has been incorporated into other
open source projects in the past and parts of the community have maintained
NOSA code on their own without any license proliferation issues.

There is no proliferation issue as NOSA 1.3 would be deprecated after NOSA
2.0 gets approved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180620/81030eb3/attachment.html>