[License-review] Fwd: [Non-DoD Source] Resolution on NOSA 2.0

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

On 3/2/18, 3:48 PM, "License-review on behalf of Bruce Perens" <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org<mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> on behalf of bruce at perens.com<mailto:bruce at perens.com>> wrote:

If you don't expect the broader Open Source community should actually be participating, you don't need OSI's approval. Just please don't call it "Open Source".

We call all existing NOSA code Open Source because it is released under an OSI approved license.

By this you are stating that you don't actually expect participation by the broader Open Source community, who have to worry about patent lawsuits and (sometimes) their intellectual property portfolios. Which leads me to wonder why OSI should be considering this license at all. If you expect this to be an island in development, the Government can make its own rules and we can not stop them. Just please don't call the result "Open Source".
No.  What I am saying that the lack of wide adoption of special purpose licensed code does not likely impact the adoption of Open Source licensed code in general.  That’s why they are called special purpose in the first place.  Larry’s argument against strong patent provisions being in normal open source licenses because that could limit open source adoption doesn’t apply.  These are different license categories with different objectives and use cases.
I am not saying there will not be participation by the community. Otherwise how could I be a former NOSA project community contributor?  Folks can also use NOSA code without contributing back to NASA so just having the source code available is valuable with or without community participation in the development.
Unless the OSI is going to retroactively reject NOSA 1.3 then the question really is whether NOSA 2.0 is an improvement or not.
In any case, folks call software “Open Source” with or without an OSI approved license. CC0 code is regularly called Open Source and is on the FSF free software licenses list and is not OSI approved.  So, I’m afraid that train has long left the station.
Obviously you haven't addressed some of the larger concerns, such as why the NOSA 2.0 attempts to attach permission terms to software which is obviously in the public domain, which the general public has an unrestricted right to use without any such terms. It's not at all clear to me that it's a good idea for OSI to assist NASA in delivering this new invention of contractually-restricted public-domain software to the Open Source world.
As I am not part of the NASA legal team, nor am I a lawyer, it’s not really my area to comment on.  As stated, I was providing a user’s perspective based on personal experience.
I will comment that while the general public in theory has an “unrestricted right to use” code created by USG employees that in practice it does not unless released under something like NOSA.  Source code is typically not considered agency records so you can’t get it via FOIA.  Getting access to the code in the first place has been the issue.
So, having a vehicle like NOSA 1.3, however flawed in your eyes, has been of great benefit to the space science and engineering community in getting access to re-usable open source or public domain code from NASA.
The whole discussion regarding NOSA 2.0 has struck me as the perfect being the enemy of the good.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180302/319319cb/attachment.html>