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

[Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL (US)]

>
> From: License-review [license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] on behalf of Brendan Hickey [brendan.m.hickey at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 4:46 PM
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> Subject: Re: [License-review] [Non-DoD Source] Re: NOSA 2.0 and Government licensing [was: moving to an issue tracker [was Re: Some notes for license submitters]]
>
> All active links contained in this email were disabled. Please verify the identity of the sender, and confirm the authenticity of all links contained within the message prior to copying and pasting the address to a Web browser.

>
>
> Hi Cem,
>
> Could you give us an idea of how widely this is being discussed at the USG? As
> an outsider it's unclear if this is just the ARL and NASA or much broader. I'd
> expect attorneys with NASA to have a different set of concerns than those at
> the GSA or USPS. In particular, is the USDS in the loop? Coordinating OSS
> efforts within the US federal government seems like something that would
> naturally fall within their remit.

I'm part of code.gov, and have brought up the issues on our biweekly telecon
there in the past.  Right at this moment, the idea of using amendments is only
between ARL and NASA, but that's because I had the phone numbers of the
relevant parties at hand and could call them fast.  Once our (NASA and ARL)
lawyers  decide if this is something that we can do, I'll bring it up as a
solution to the whole code.gov group.  I suspect that it will be accepted at
that level, but I can't guarantee it; I don't speak for the USG as whole, and
I'm not at the White House level (I'm WAAAYYY down the totem pole).

> As a staunch anti-proliferationist, I think the OSI should be hesitant to
> approve a narrowly tailored and legally novel license. It would be helpful to
> know if severability and contract concerns represent consensus legal opinions
> within the USG. I'm more than happy to be misinformed, but there's context
> that I don't have.

The USG is vast, as are the number of legal opinions within it.  I'm trying to
herd anyone I can into having a consensus on what the issues are, and how we
can safely and efficiently solve them.  I haven't succeeded yet.

Thanks,
Cem Karan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180621/6389a44d/attachment-0001.html>