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

[Bruce Perens]

On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. <Nigel.Tzeng at jhuapl.edu>
wrote:

> 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.
>
OSI's policy is that they are not obligated to repeat previous mistakes. In
particular, they are not obligated to accept a license because they
accepted one like it before. There has been public debate regarding whether
they should have accepted 1.3.

It's perfectly reasonable for a license committee member (me) to request
that a license that *may *be an improvement on a previously accepted one be
further improved before it is recommended for acceptance.

As I am not part of the NASA legal team, nor am I a lawyer, it’s not really
> my area to comment on.
>
Accepted. I'd like to hear from Bryan or have him submit updated text. This
is not a shooting match, the goal is to help you arrive at an acceptable
license, or come to the conclusion that what you'd *like *to do can't be
accepted.


> 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.
>
IMO, the public gets that right if the software is lawfully released at
all, regardless of whether a license was applied to it or what that license
was. There is also the question of whether the government has any right to
deliberately keep an unclassified useful work of a civil servant from the
public, in particular under the technology transfer imperatives connected
with NASA's funding.

The whole discussion regarding NOSA 2.0 has struck me as the perfect being
> the enemy of the good.
>
This might be why OSI has been so reticent. They can't apply "good" to
this, and they don't see any profit in a public discussion where the two
sides are so far apart.

    Thanks

    Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180302/5cebd857/attachment-0001.html>